So Much for 'Father's Day' - in a Country Where Fatherhood is Dying Out

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Fathers day has passed. Thought this was sharp comment piece on the state of fatherhood in the UK.

So Much for 'Father's Day' - in a Country Where Fatherhood is Dying Out

By the end of his or her childhood, a British boy or girl is much more likely to have a TV set in the bedroom than a father at home.

Our 45-year national war against traditional family life has been so successful that almost 50% of 15-year-olds no longer live with both their parents. At the same time we have indulged our neglected and abandoned young with electronics, so that 79% of children aged between 5 and 16 have bedroom TVs.

And as we soppily mark ‘Father’s Day’ with cards, socks, sentimentality and meals out, we should remember that in almost all cases the absent parent is the father.

There is no doubt about the facts here. Let me list some of them. The cost of our wild, unprecedented national experiment in fatherlessness is now £49 billion each year, more than the defence budget. This figure, currently costing each taxpayer £1,541 per year, is rising all the time, and has gone up by almost a quarter since 2009.

The money partly goes on handouts and housing which an old-fashioned family with a working father would not have needed. Partly it goes on trying to cope with the crime, disorder, truancy, educational failure, physical and mental illness and general misery which are so much more common among the fatherless than in those from stable homes.

And there is more to come. One in three marriages ends in divorce, while many who would once have married never even bother. Roughly 300,000 families of all kinds separate every year. There are now three million children growing up in fatherless homes. Another 58 fatherless families are launched every day. And be in no doubt that it is the fathers who are, overwhelmingly, absent in these new-style modern households. Only 8% of single-parent homes are headed by a lone father.

Four in ten children being brought up by their mothers – nearly 1.2 million - have no contact with their fathers at all.

Another 67,000 (In England alone) dwell in the organised despair and neglect which are cruelly misnamed ‘care’.

In the last 40 years the proportion of adults who are married has sunk from 70% to fewer than half. The number of single adults has hugely increased (up 50%). A quarter of a million people each year spend Christmas alone. One in six adults now cohabits, compared to one in 50 in the 1960s. Cohabiting households, which have doubled in number since 1996, are the fastest-growing type of family arrangement in the United Kingdom.

By 2015, there will be two million lone parents (up 120,000 since 2010); more than 24% of children will be in lone-parent households.

It matters. Young people from fractured homes are statistically twice as likely to have behaviour problems as those from stable households. They are more likely to be depressed, to abuse drugs or alcohol, to do badly at school, and end up living in relative poverty.

Girls with absent fathers (according to studies in the USA and New Zealand) have teenage pregnancy rates seven or eight times as high as those whose fathers have stayed in meaningful touch with them.

By contrast, the link between marriage and good health is so strong that one study showed the health gain achieved by marrying was as great as that received from giving up smoking.

In all these dismal statistics of marriage decline and failure, the United Kingdom is one of the worst afflicted among advanced nations. And in many of the poorest and most desolate parts of the country, the problem is concentrated into certain areas where fathers in the home are an endangered species.

From Gosport in Hampshire, to Cardiff, Liverpool, Easington in County Durham, Inner London, Bristol, Birmingham and Sheffield, there are whole city wards where at least 60% of the households are headed by a lone parent.

And it is in such circumstances that a procession of serial boyfriends, a type of domestic arrangement closely associated with physical and sexual abuse of children, is most likely to exist.

This great fleet of hard truths is known in general to those who govern the country, and in hard detail to millions who suffer from their consequences.

How, as a country and a people can we manage to be so indifferent to them, when we claim to set fatherhood and fathers at the centre of our culture? The fundamental prayer of the Christian church begins with the words ‘Our Father’. Americans speak of their ‘founding fathers’. The father has since human society began been protector, provider, source of authority, bound by honour and fidelity to defend his hearth.

If he is gone, who takes his place ? Of all people, D.H. Lawrence, author of Lady Chatterley’s Lover, wrote of a man and his wife as ‘a king and queen with one or two subjects and a few square yards of territory of their own…true freedom because it is a true fulfilment for man, woman and children.’

But he warned of a great danger if marriage, which makes fatherhood what it is, fell. ‘Break it, and you will have to go back to the overwhelming dominance of the State, which existed before the Christian era’.

And now we see his prophecy fulfilled. The state spends billions, and intervenes incessantly, to try to replace the lost force of fatherhood, and it fails.

I owe most of the facts above to the Centre for Social Justice, which on Friday published its full report into what it calls ‘Fractured Families’.

The CSJ is very close to the Tory party, to the government and to Iain Duncan Smith, the Work and Pensions Secretary. So it is startling to find that the report is coldly savage in its dismissal of the Cameron government’s efforts to fix this problem.

‘Conservatives say they would have been more radical on family policy had it not been for their Liberal Democrat colleagues, but even those commitments made in the Programme for Government have been ignored so far.

‘So for all of the promises the Conservatives made in Opposition, for all of the gimmick giveaways politicians have unveiled for middle-class families, and for all of the safe ‘families come in all shapes and sizes’ rhetoric ministers have used for decades, hardly anything has been done to resist the tsunami of family breakdown battering the United Kingdom’.

The authors continue: ‘Saying that family form is irrelevant is inaccurate and ultimately counter-productive…’ This is true. Someone ought to speak up for marriage. But is it entirely true to say that ‘Backing commitment and setting a goal of reducing instability does not equate to criticising or stigmatising lone parents.’? Doesn’t approval of the one inevitably stigmatise the other? And if you aren’t prepared to do that, will you get anywhere?

They also assert that ‘marriage is not a right-wing obsession’, though, speaking as a right-winger I rather think it is. It certainly isn’t a left-wing priority. They argue : ‘People throughout society want to marry, but the cultural and financial barriersfaced by those in the poorest communities thwart their aspirations’.

It is certainly true that some benefits actively discourage couples from being or staying married.

But it is the ‘cultural’ barriers I want to talk about here. Anyone who dares to discuss this subject is quickly accused of ‘hating’ or wishing to persecute ‘single mothers’. Any article on the subject is supposed (maybe it is an EU regulation?) to contain a disclaimer saying that many single mothers do a great job.

Well, I neither hate single mothers nor wish to persecute them, and I am perfectly prepared to believe that many of them do a great job. But it isn’t the point. The main problem with single mothers is that they are acting rationally, in a society which actively encourages them with money and approval. Who can blame them?

There is a lot of piety about this. Suggest that anyone deliberately gets pregnant (or rather, in this age of morning-after pills and abortion on demand, deliberately stays pregnant) to get a house and a handout, and you are angrily dismissed as some kind of snobbish hate-figure.

Well, mightn’t it be true? As far as I know, nobody has ever researched the motives of the young women who accept this sparse arrangement. I wish they would. But is it unreasonable to suggest that if you reward certain types of behaviour with money and housing, and with social approval, then that behaviour will increase?

It’s not just me. Adele Adkins once recalled ‘The ambition at my state school was to get pregnant and sponge off the Government’, adding: ‘That ain’t cool.’ Perhaps successful singing stars can get away with saying what others only think.

I don’t myself see that it is a particularly harsh view to hold. A baby is a wonderful thing, and many young women long to be mothers, and good luck to them. Many modern males are a pretty unattractive proposition, so why marry one, if the state will give you a home and an income on your own?

Meanwhile men have learned enough about the divorce courts to know that marriage is a big risk. If it goes wrong, they are the ones who have to move out, and yet they will still have to pay.

Why not take advantage of the fact that the state - which once demanded the father’s name when any baby was registered, so he could be made to pay for his child - now happily allows us to leave this space blank?

My guess is that doing anything really radical about this scares all politicians too much. For the War on Fatherhood is protected by a great taboo.

In every family, every workplace, every school, every pub, every weekend football or cricket team, every political party, every church congregation, there are now large numbers of people who signed up for the Great Cultural and Moral Revolution which was launched in the 1960s and swept through the land like a mighty rushing wind in the 1970s.

The fiery heart of this was the Divorce Law Reform Act of 1969. This change was very popular. It is interesting to note that, just before it began its way through Parliament, Engelbert Humperdinck’s hymn for would-be divorcees, ‘Release Me’, pushed the Beatles off the top of the music charts for weeks on end.

The new law pretty much embodied the song’s plea ‘Please release me, let me go/For I don't love you any more/To waste our lives would be a sin/Release me and let me love again.’

Portrayed at the time as a kindness to those trapped in loveless marriages, the new law made it much easier to end a troubled union than to fight to save it.

And once this had become general, marriage changed with amazing speed from a lifelong commitment into a lifestyle choice. And from a lifestyle choice it changed into a risky and often inconvenient contract. Divorce wasn’t shameful or embarrassing any more. The country was littered with male divorcees complaining about the division of the property and the child support payments.

Men began to calculate that marriage wasn’t worth it. And the Pill and easy abortion (other parts of the 1960s revolution) put an end to shotgun weddings.

Who, in such a society, could condemn the pregnant teenager without hypocrisy? Hardly anyone, especially rackety politicians and flexible churchmen. The middle classes had abandoned lifelong marriage with a sigh of relief. The aristocracy had never cared for it much. Even the Royal Family was riddled with divorce.

The housing-estate poor were simply following the same moral code as those who posed as their betters, and weren’t actually better at all. And the adults of the era have all had a lot of fun as a result. But everyone, throughout this great period of release and revolt, forgot one small thing. What was to become of the children?

Now we are finding out. And a generation which has never known fathers, or family life, or fidelity or constancy, is now busy begetting children of its own. What will become of them? How will boys who have never seen a father learn to be fathers?

I’d have a moral panic at this stage, if I thought it would do any good. But perhaps it will be the victims of this selfish generation, our children and grandchildren, who – having suffered its effects - will re-establish stable family life in our country.

**A Hostile contributor complains about 'a distinct lack of citations' in thjis article. Apart from the fact that newspaper articles are not normally footnoted, the piece clearly states:

"I owe most of the facts above to the Centre for Social Justice, which on Friday published its full report into what it calls ‘Fractured Families’."

This document is fully footnoted and can be found here :

http://www.centreforsocialjustice.org.uk/UserStorage/pdf/Pdf%20reports/CSJ_Fractured

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/

[glo]

Very sad. imsad

I have a friend who works with young boys in a 'correction centre'. She talked to us on Fathers Day during the church service.
60% of those boys have no contact with their fathers.
50% have fathers who are in prison themselves.

There are estates in Britain which are largely inhabited by single mothers. (Nothing wrong with single mothers per se. of course. Many do a great job) But the children grow up without any positive male role models. No male family members or even male teachers.

How on earth are young boys supposed to learn how to be good fathers, if they have never been shown? imsad
My friend runs fatherhood groups for those young lads. May it help them later in life! She says many of them desire to be good fathers when they are older.

[ardianto]

Now I share a room with my kids.

[greenhill]

Mmmmm, children are the victims of the 'short-sightedness' of the 'adults' in these matters.

Except in cases like our Br. Ardianto. All the best to you and your efforts, may Allah make the way easy for you.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[sister herb]

Salam alaykum

In Finland Fathers Day is at November. Then I bake a cake to my father.

:statisfie

[Iceee]

Father's Day was last week here in Canada.

I went with my friends and took my 10 year old brother to the mall.
Bought my Dad socks, like every Father's Day...

If we took a survey of 100 students and asked if they liked mothers day or fathers day more, most would say mothers day. I worked as teachers assistant last year in a grade 6 classroom, the students loved and respected me etc. One day I was teaching these 10-11 year olds about respect to their parents. After school, I was told by my supervisor not to talk about "parents." Because 50% of the students in that classroom who were listening to me lived with Mom or grandparents, no father.

Just so sad :(

[Ali Mujahidin]

This year I got the best Father's Day present ever. My daughter created a special graphics and posted it in Facebook. All my children wished me a Happy Father's Day.

In Thailand, Father's Day is the same day as the King's birthday. So every father in Thailand celebrates together with the King. And, you guessed it, Mother's Day is the same day as the Queen's birthday.

[ardianto]

My father was a good father. He passed away when I was 21

My friends fathers were good fathers. I know it because I close with them. Now my friends have become fathers, and they are good fathers too.

[glo]

My stepfather died this week.
Although he was not my biological father (and we didn't always get on well when I was a teenager!) he has been my father figure since the age of 10 and I owe much to him.
It took me many, many years to learn to appreciate him. :embarrass

[sister herb]

Peace with you Glo

May God be mercy to him.

Remember what Flame wrote:

Muslims who think that it is wrong to pray for non-Muslims are monsters, in my opinion. They have lost their humanity.

My prayers to him.

[glo]

Peace with you Glo

May God be mercy to him.

My prayers to him.

Thank you, sister herb.

I am travelling to Germany on Tuesday for the funeral and to spend some time with my mother. This is the second time she has become a widow. :cry:

[sister herb]

My dua to your mom.

[ardianto]

My stepfather died this week.

I'm sorry to hear it. May Allah give strengh to your mother.

My mother became widow twice too. Yes, she ever married again but then my stepfather passed away few years later.

[ardianto]

children are the victims of the 'short-sightedness' of the 'adults' in these matters.

One thing that taught to me since I was kid (yes, since I was kid) was, if I get divorced, my kids would become the victims.

[sister herb]

I am widow too. I know how it is lost someone you love.

imsad

[ardianto]

I am widow too. I know how it is lost someone you love.

imsad

But, the karateka? isn't he your husband now??

[glo]

I'm sorry to hear it. May Allah give strengh to your mother.

My mother became widow twice too. Yes, she ever married again but then my stepfather passed away few years later.

I am widow too. I know how it is lost someone you love.

imsad

May God strengthen and protect all who have lost loved ones.

[sister herb]

But, the karateka? isn't he your husband now??

Salam alaykum

I meant my first husband I married when I was 23. My second is karateka like me now (age 47 :embarrass).

[glo]

My second is karateka like me now

What does karateka mean?

[ardianto]

Salam alaykum

I meant my first husband I married when I was 23. My second is karateka like me now (age 47 :embarrass).

Wa'alaikum salam

I'm sorry if I offend you. But I wrote that because you wrote "I am widow" not "I was widow".

Sister, if a widow has married again, she must call herself as "wife" not "widow" anymore. It's for respecting her new husband.

My best regard to your husband. :)

What does karateka mean?

Karate martial artist

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karate

[sister herb]

Wa'alaikum salam

I'm sorry if I offend you. But I wrote that because you wrote "I am widow" not "I was widow".

Sister, if a widow has married again, she must call herself as "wife" not "widow" anymore. It's for respecting her new husband.

;D Sorry I forgot that. I was widow 20 years and wife again just a month.

So i was widow.

[ardianto]

English is not my first language. But I think there is difference between become a father and being a father.

Become a father is easy, but being a father?. It's not an easy thing.

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Another article on how the family is viewed by the political classes in the UK.

Since when was saving your children a 'lifestyle choice'?

There’s something a little jaunty about the expression ‘lifestyle choice’. And maybe in the super-rich world of our Chancellor of the Exchequer, this is how full-time motherhood is regarded.

But actually quite a lot of couples view it as a stern duty.

They see the terrifying world of bad schools, bullying, drugs, internet filth and peer-pressure to do the wrong thing, which now menaces children, and they resolve to make their homes a fortress against this. To do so, they give up many of the pleasures of life. Families with full-time mothers don’t tend to live in big houses, they often go without holidays and the array of shiny consumer goods that two incomes buy. They reckon it is worth the sacrifice. They do not expect to be thanked. Far from it.

But they think it a bit much that their heavy taxes go to pay for nurseries for those who choose to have two incomes rather than one. They learned long ago that the state was suspicious of them and hostile to them.

The New Labour Commissar Patricia Hewitt said back in June 2003 that mothers who stayed at home were a ‘real problem’.

The Tories, who largely supported Labour’s Marxist (see below) ‘Equality’ laws and have their own ‘Equalities’ Minister, have always acted as if they agreed with Ms Hewitt.

They have subsidised every form of childcare except that done by the child’s own mother.

And now the millionaire Chancellor (what is his name? I can never remember) has airily dismissed the embattled minority of traditional families as indulging in a ‘lifestyle choice’, like smoking or owning an allotment. He’s just as much an enemy of the strong family as Commissar Hewitt. The minds of the Tories are so empty that they have been colonised by the ideas of the Left.

For instance, where do you think the following quotations come from?

‘Complete equal rights for women and men are anchored in the laws .  .  .’

‘Equal work is obviously rewarded with equal pay, regardless of sex. Women hold many leading positions in society .  .  .’

‘The overwhelming majority of women today do not want to be housewives with nothing more to do than wash and cook and run the home .  .  .’

‘Fathers pushing prams and husbands who have learned to operate domestic appliances more or less perfectly are no longer a curiosity.’

Actually they are in Everyday Life In The GDR, a propaganda booklet published in 1982 by communist East Germany, in praise of itself.

It boasts that the communist state has no need of women’s liberation organisations because their demands have all been met. And it quotes Karl Marx’s 1868 words: ‘Social progress can be measured precisely in terms of the social status accorded the fair sex.’ (The hairy-faced old brute added the words ‘The ugly ones included’, which would have got him into trouble with the Guardian and the BBC today, and perhaps also an invitation to join UKIP.)

Revolutionaries hate the strong family, the fortress of private life, tradition and individuality. They believe in the parental state, all-wise and all-powerful.

The Tories have taken the wrong side, and betrayed their supporters, on this and on all other issues. No wonder they now have fewer than 100,000 members. They should have fewer than 100,000 voters.

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2013/08/since-when-was-saving-your-children-a-lifestyle-choice.html

[Jerbi]

Salam,

My country is known to have a percentage among the highest of marriages that end in divorce in the Arab world ( If not the highest). The chief reason for this is said to be marital infidelity. Ironically , marriages in my country are typically religious , with Fatiha and all.
As for father's day , I may shock some people here but I don't think people in my country know of a father's day. I know I don't. Mother's day however is well known.
We also have a woman's day. It's a day off too.
Personally , I intend on being a good father if I get to become one someday.

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Teach married couples about monogamy for sake of the children, says High Court judge

Married couples should be sent to classes promoting monogamy to help spare children lifelong scars from family breakdown, according to the High Court Judge Sir Paul Coleridge


Married couples need to be taught about monogamy to help stem a tide of family breakdown which could blight life in Britain for decades, a leading High Court judge will say today.

Sir Paul Coleridge, the family division judge, will warn of “yawning public ignorance” about the damaging mental effects on children of conflict between parents, even from birth.

It emerged last week that Sir Paul, who is retiring next year, decided to step down because of opposition from within the judiciary to his support for traditional marriage.

He has been placed under investigation and could be officially censured over comments last year criticising the Government for pushing through same-sex marriage legislation rather than tackling a “crisis of family breakdown”.

Speaking in London he will call for a new approach to tackling family breakdown with a greater emphasis on helping prevent relationships running into trouble in the first place.

Sir Paul, who founded the Marriage Foundation think-tank last year, is calling for couples in apparently happy and stable marriages to be actively encouraged to seek professional help to build stable strong long-term relationships.

He is hosting a conference in London today to promote the idea of “relationships education” – sending couples to professional classes to teach them how to avoid potential pitfalls rather than relying on marriage guidance and counselling after the damage has been done.

The Work and pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith is among those expected to attend and speak in support of the idea.

Sir Paul, one of the most outspoken figures on the bench, will single out the very public acrimony between Charles Saatchi and Nigella Lawson, exposed during the trial of two former aides, as an example of the pain of a family split which he said would “chime with many who had been exposed to the rigours of the break-up mill”.

He will argue that for centuries society was held together artificially by “nasty taboos” and stigmas which prevented people getting divorced even in cruel and violent relationships.

But unless modern couples can learn to respect “self imposed boundaries” Britain could be facing “Social anarchy” with children the biggest victims, he will say.

“I encounter it, day in and day out, in arena of the family courts – let it not be forgotten that 50 per cent of all children are not living with both parents by the time they are 15,” he will say.

“There are millions of them and it is they who are the real victims and casualties.

“Their parents are too, of course, but the children are given no choice, are never consulted and only rarely considered before it and its effects are dumped into their young lives, slowly to release their legacy over the whole course of their upbringing and way beyond into their adult lives.”

He will continue: “We live in a time of mass family breakdown. We know of its destructive effects.

“In the old days society was held together by rigid taboos and stigmas which prevented parties from divorcing and stigmatised illegitimate children.

“These taboos were indiscriminate in their application and led to much inhuman behaviour and unhappiness.

“I am genuinely thankful they have evaporated and been consigned to the scrap-heap of history in favour of individual choice.

“However if we are to enjoy freedom to chose we must be helped to understand and make the right choices for ourselves and our children.

“Social anarchy and a society without boundaries is not the only the alternative to nasty taboos.

“If we are not to have restraint by taboo we must have personal restraint and self imposed boundaries.”

But he admitted that many couples would be reluctant to consider marriage classes because they fear they would be like a “Maoist re-education camp” or involve lying on a couch or “embarrassing group discussion”.

“It is instead about equipping people by giving them the tools to cope with and manage the eternally difficult subject of living with your partner in a monogamous long term relationship,” he will say.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/sex...urt-judge.html

[ardianto]

A day after my wife passed away, an old friend who did not met me for long time came to my home. After saying condolences he told me that he got divorced in mid of 2012. But then he smile and told me “I married again in early of 2013”. Then I saw his new wife who waited in the car. Beautiful.

I become a widower since June 2013, and a month later I began to get ‘support’ to get married again. Amazingly it started by my wife old friend!. I understand if they support me to get married again although I still surprised when two month ago an older woman who was close enough with my wife told me “I thought you have married again!”.

Frankly I am so familiar with women gaze and can guess what they think on me, based on the way they look or glance at me, and their body languages. So I know what are their view on me in my 46 years old age. Just wonder, I found some of them still glance at me in that way.

But I am a widower with children, not divorced man like my old friend who his children live with his ex-wife. I must still maintain my fatherhood and cannot thinking “Let my ex take care my children” like many divorced men who I know.

This time my children have not ready to accept a new woman as their mother, and I should not selfish. I am a father, and my children happiness is the most important thing for me.

:)

[ardianto]

A divorced woman ever told my wife about her problem because her ex-husband refused to pay her children study fee and basic needs. It made me wonder because I knew her ex-husband was rich man while that divorced woman was house wife who didn't have an income. Her ex-husband had married again less than a year after they divorced.

Okay, I know, not every divorced man is bad. But frankly, I feel concerned with behavior of some of divorced men who I know. They neglect their children who abandoned with their ex-wives. Maybe they forget that they are still those children's fathers and still have responsibility on them.

To be honest, there was a time when my wife was angry to me and started thinking about divorce, but then she threw away this thought. One day she told me
"Do you know? I was ever thinking about divorce in that time?"
"I know"
"You knew it? Then what would you do if we were really divorced?"
"I would not neglect my responsibility to our children, I would still give attention, fulfill their needs. And fulfill your needs too because you are their mother".
My wife silent for a moment, then she smile at me.

Yes, there is ex-wife, there is ex-husband. But there is no ex-child, there is no ex-parent.

I love my late wife so much, but I am still an ordinary man who can feel lonely too without someone beside me. But, my children happiness is the most important thing for me. I know it's still hard for them to accept a new woman as their mother.

And thank you very much for my mother who often scolded me when I was kid with "If you don't train yourself to have responsibility since now, how could you bear your responsibility as father in the future??!!"

[Muhaba]

Salaam

Fathers day has passed. Thought this was sharp comment piece on the state of fatherhood in the UK.

So Much for 'Father's Day' - in a Country Where Fatherhood is Dying Out

By the end of his or her childhood, a British boy or girl is much more likely to have a TV set in the bedroom than a father at home.

Our 45-year national war against traditional family life has been so successful that almost 50% of 15-year-olds no longer live with both their parents. At the same time we have indulged our neglected and abandoned young with electronics, so that 79% of children aged between 5 and 16 have bedroom TVs.

And as we soppily mark ‘Father’s Day’ with cards, socks, sentimentality and meals out, we should remember that in almost all cases the absent parent is the father.

There is no doubt about the facts here. Let me list some of them. The cost of our wild, unprecedented national experiment in fatherlessness is now £49 billion each year, more than the defence budget. This figure, currently costing each taxpayer £1,541 per year, is rising all the time, and has gone up by almost a quarter since 2009.

The money partly goes on handouts and housing which an old-fashioned family with a working father would not have needed. Partly it goes on trying to cope with the crime, disorder, truancy, educational failure, physical and mental illness and general misery which are so much more common among the fatherless than in those from stable homes.

And there is more to come. One in three marriages ends in divorce, while many who would once have married never even bother. Roughly 300,000 families of all kinds separate every year. There are now three million children growing up in fatherless homes. Another 58 fatherless families are launched every day. And be in no doubt that it is the fathers who are, overwhelmingly, absent in these new-style modern households. Only 8% of single-parent homes are headed by a lone father.

Four in ten children being brought up by their mothers – nearly 1.2 million - have no contact with their fathers at all.

Another 67,000 (In England alone) dwell in the organised despair and neglect which are cruelly misnamed ‘care’.

In the last 40 years the proportion of adults who are married has sunk from 70% to fewer than half. The number of single adults has hugely increased (up 50%). A quarter of a million people each year spend Christmas alone. One in six adults now cohabits, compared to one in 50 in the 1960s. Cohabiting households, which have doubled in number since 1996, are the fastest-growing type of family arrangement in the United Kingdom.

By 2015, there will be two million lone parents (up 120,000 since 2010); more than 24% of children will be in lone-parent households.

It matters. Young people from fractured homes are statistically twice as likely to have behaviour problems as those from stable households. They are more likely to be depressed, to abuse drugs or alcohol, to do badly at school, and end up living in relative poverty.

Girls with absent fathers (according to studies in the USA and New Zealand) have teenage pregnancy rates seven or eight times as high as those whose fathers have stayed in meaningful touch with them.

By contrast, the link between marriage and good health is so strong that one study showed the health gain achieved by marrying was as great as that received from giving up smoking.

In all these dismal statistics of marriage decline and failure, the United Kingdom is one of the worst afflicted among advanced nations. And in many of the poorest and most desolate parts of the country, the problem is concentrated into certain areas where fathers in the home are an endangered species.

From Gosport in Hampshire, to Cardiff, Liverpool, Easington in County Durham, Inner London, Bristol, Birmingham and Sheffield, there are whole city wards where at least 60% of the households are headed by a lone parent.

And it is in such circumstances that a procession of serial boyfriends, a type of domestic arrangement closely associated with physical and sexual abuse of children, is most likely to exist.

This great fleet of hard truths is known in general to those who govern the country, and in hard detail to millions who suffer from their consequences.

How, as a country and a people can we manage to be so indifferent to them, when we claim to set fatherhood and fathers at the centre of our culture? The fundamental prayer of the Christian church begins with the words ‘Our Father’. Americans speak of their ‘founding fathers’. The father has since human society began been protector, provider, source of authority, bound by honour and fidelity to defend his hearth.

If he is gone, who takes his place ? Of all people, D.H. Lawrence, author of Lady Chatterley’s Lover, wrote of a man and his wife as ‘a king and queen with one or two subjects and a few square yards of territory of their own…true freedom because it is a true fulfilment for man, woman and children.’

But he warned of a great danger if marriage, which makes fatherhood what it is, fell. ‘Break it, and you will have to go back to the overwhelming dominance of the State, which existed before the Christian era’.

And now we see his prophecy fulfilled. The state spends billions, and intervenes incessantly, to try to replace the lost force of fatherhood, and it fails.

I owe most of the facts above to the Centre for Social Justice, which on Friday published its full report into what it calls ‘Fractured Families’.

The CSJ is very close to the Tory party, to the government and to Iain Duncan Smith, the Work and Pensions Secretary. So it is startling to find that the report is coldly savage in its dismissal of the Cameron government’s efforts to fix this problem.

‘Conservatives say they would have been more radical on family policy had it not been for their Liberal Democrat colleagues, but even those commitments made in the Programme for Government have been ignored so far.

‘So for all of the promises the Conservatives made in Opposition, for all of the gimmick giveaways politicians have unveiled for middle-class families, and for all of the safe ‘families come in all shapes and sizes’ rhetoric ministers have used for decades, hardly anything has been done to resist the tsunami of family breakdown battering the United Kingdom’.

The authors continue: ‘Saying that family form is irrelevant is inaccurate and ultimately counter-productive…’ This is true. Someone ought to speak up for marriage. But is it entirely true to say that ‘Backing commitment and setting a goal of reducing instability does not equate to criticising or stigmatising lone parents.’? Doesn’t approval of the one inevitably stigmatise the other? And if you aren’t prepared to do that, will you get anywhere?

They also assert that ‘marriage is not a right-wing obsession’, though, speaking as a right-winger I rather think it is. It certainly isn’t a left-wing priority. They argue : ‘People throughout society want to marry, but the cultural and financial barriersfaced by those in the poorest communities thwart their aspirations’.

It is certainly true that some benefits actively discourage couples from being or staying married.

But it is the ‘cultural’ barriers I want to talk about here. Anyone who dares to discuss this subject is quickly accused of ‘hating’ or wishing to persecute ‘single mothers’. Any article on the subject is supposed (maybe it is an EU regulation?) to contain a disclaimer saying that many single mothers do a great job.

Well, I neither hate single mothers nor wish to persecute them, and I am perfectly prepared to believe that many of them do a great job. But it isn’t the point. The main problem with single mothers is that they are acting rationally, in a society which actively encourages them with money and approval. Who can blame them?

There is a lot of piety about this. Suggest that anyone deliberately gets pregnant (or rather, in this age of morning-after pills and abortion on demand, deliberately stays pregnant) to get a house and a handout, and you are angrily dismissed as some kind of snobbish hate-figure.

Well, mightn’t it be true? As far as I know, nobody has ever researched the motives of the young women who accept this sparse arrangement. I wish they would. But is it unreasonable to suggest that if you reward certain types of behaviour with money and housing, and with social approval, then that behaviour will increase?

It’s not just me. Adele Adkins once recalled ‘The ambition at my state school was to get pregnant and sponge off the Government’, adding: ‘That ain’t cool.’ Perhaps successful singing stars can get away with saying what others only think.

I don’t myself see that it is a particularly harsh view to hold. A baby is a wonderful thing, and many young women long to be mothers, and good luck to them. Many modern males are a pretty unattractive proposition, so why marry one, if the state will give you a home and an income on your own?

Meanwhile men have learned enough about the divorce courts to know that marriage is a big risk. If it goes wrong, they are the ones who have to move out, and yet they will still have to pay.

Why not take advantage of the fact that the state - which once demanded the father’s name when any baby was registered, so he could be made to pay for his child - now happily allows us to leave this space blank?

My guess is that doing anything really radical about this scares all politicians too much. For the War on Fatherhood is protected by a great taboo.

In every family, every workplace, every school, every pub, every weekend football or cricket team, every political party, every church congregation, there are now large numbers of people who signed up for the Great Cultural and Moral Revolution which was launched in the 1960s and swept through the land like a mighty rushing wind in the 1970s.

The fiery heart of this was the Divorce Law Reform Act of 1969. This change was very popular. It is interesting to note that, just before it began its way through Parliament, Engelbert Humperdinck’s hymn for would-be divorcees, ‘Release Me’, pushed the Beatles off the top of the music charts for weeks on end.

The new law pretty much embodied the song’s plea ‘Please release me, let me go/For I don't love you any more/To waste our lives would be a sin/Release me and let me love again.’

Portrayed at the time as a kindness to those trapped in loveless marriages, the new law made it much easier to end a troubled union than to fight to save it.

And once this had become general, marriage changed with amazing speed from a lifelong commitment into a lifestyle choice. And from a lifestyle choice it changed into a risky and often inconvenient contract. Divorce wasn’t shameful or embarrassing any more. The country was littered with male divorcees complaining about the division of the property and the child support payments.

Men began to calculate that marriage wasn’t worth it. And the Pill and easy abortion (other parts of the 1960s revolution) put an end to shotgun weddings.

Who, in such a society, could condemn the pregnant teenager without hypocrisy? Hardly anyone, especially rackety politicians and flexible churchmen. The middle classes had abandoned lifelong marriage with a sigh of relief. The aristocracy had never cared for it much. Even the Royal Family was riddled with divorce.

The housing-estate poor were simply following the same moral code as those who posed as their betters, and weren’t actually better at all. And the adults of the era have all had a lot of fun as a result. But everyone, throughout this great period of release and revolt, forgot one small thing. What was to become of the children?

Now we are finding out. And a generation which has never known fathers, or family life, or fidelity or constancy, is now busy begetting children of its own. What will become of them? How will boys who have never seen a father learn to be fathers?

I’d have a moral panic at this stage, if I thought it would do any good. But perhaps it will be the victims of this selfish generation, our children and grandchildren, who – having suffered its effects - will re-establish stable family life in our country.

**A Hostile contributor complains about 'a distinct lack of citations' in thjis article. Apart from the fact that newspaper articles are not normally footnoted, the piece clearly states:

"I owe most of the facts above to the Centre for Social Justice, which on Friday published its full report into what it calls ‘Fractured Families’."

This document is fully footnoted and can be found here :

http://www.centreforsocialjustice.or.../CSJ_Fractured

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/

It is the hard truth. Maybe they'll learn from their mistakes and realize that God's way is the right way. That freedom from the path set by God doesn't have good results.

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Another update on the state of Marriage in the UK.

A tax break can't rescue marriage: It's been doomed for four decades

Marriage is on its deathbed. A tiny tax allowance won’t save it. Nor will benevolent old judges such as Sir Paul Coleridge urging young couples to wed before starting a family.

In fact, Sir Paul of all people should understand what the law has done to marriage. After 1969, in most of the Western world, the marriage vow was legally meaningless.

All those moving promises about ‘for richer, for poorer’, or ‘in sickness and in health’ (let alone ‘till death us do part’) were cancelled by Parliament. From then on, one party to the marriage could end it more easily than you can get out of a car lease.

And if the other spouse resisted, and wanted to stick to the vows he or she had made, he or she could, in the end, be dragged from the family home by the forces of the State backed with the threat of prison.

For the most part (but of course not always), it was men who were compulsorily dumped. The law helped this to happen. It didn’t matter how badly either party behaved. Women increasingly got custody of the children, because they were women.

The same went for the family home. The courts didn’t bother to enforce orders allowing ex-husbands to stay in touch with their children.

Hence Willie Nelson’s bitter joke: ‘I’m not going to get married again. I’ll just find a woman I don’t like and buy her a house.’

In the end, the surviving marriages in our society exist entirely because both parties want them to. The State, the law, the tax system, the schools, the benefits system and our culture offer them no support and plenty of penalties.

And if women wonder why they cannot get men to marry them these days, they just need to check the legal position. It is amazing that so many men still do. The day is coming when the only people in Britain who want to get married will be lesbian clergywomen.

I know you think this is just me being extreme and pessimistic. But it isn’t. One of this country’s finest legal minds, Baroness Hale of Richmond, now sits on our alleged Supreme Court as its Deputy President.

But back in 1982, when she was just the barrister Brenda Hoggett, she wrote prophetically that the efforts of English law to make the sexes more equal had, in fact, destroyed most of the legal privileges of marriage. ‘Family law no longer makes any attempt to buttress the stability of marriage or any other union,’ she wrote.

‘Logically, we have reached a point at which, rather than discussing which remedies should now be extended to the unmarried, we should be considering whether the legal institution of marriage continues to serve any useful purposes.’

Well, of course, this is Britain and we never stare the truth in the face like that. We are still pretending. But if anyone really wants to save and revive marriage (and there’s not much time left), it is the law they need to look at, not the tax form.

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Reposting, (since it was lost in the forum transfer)

A personal view by Erin Pizzey. In this shocking, but brilliant documentary originally shown on the BBC, Erin explains how feminism is responsible for destroying the family. (The original copyright is that of the BBC.)

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Dr. Helen Smith joins Steve to discuss her new book, "MEN ON STRIKE WHY MEN ARE BOYCOTTING MARRIAGE, FATHERHOOD, AND THE AMERICAN DREAM - AND WHY IT MATTERS," on how American society has become anti-male and men are sensing the backlash and both consciously and unconsciously going "on strike."

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Another update

Abbott: Feminism To Blame For Family Collapse

Feminism has played a part in the breakdown of the family which has led to serious social problems, Labour MP Diane Abbott says.

Feminism is partly to blame for the breakdown of the traditional family, one of Labour's most senior female politicians has claimed.

Labour's public health spokesman Diane Abbott, a divorced mother-of-one, warned that some major social problems "stem from family breakdown".

The feminist MP's declaration is controversial because it appears to reflect the views of Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith.

It could also herald a new political battle as the Tories and Labour vie to show how they will support traditional families.

Ms Abbott said: "As a feminist, perhaps we have been ambivalent about families. In the 1980s, we used to say: 'A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle.'

"The more academic version was: 'The family is the site of women's oppression.'

"So those of us who came of age at the height of feminism had very mixed views about the family, since it seemed to be defined as a heterosexual thing with a certificate, children and mum at home."

She called on left-wingers to recognise that "some of the biggest public health issues stem from family breakdown".

"Doctors say to me that so many of the drug and alcohol problems they see stem from family difficulties," she said.

In a nod to the left, she added: "When I talk about stable families, I do not only mean the heterosexual, 2.1-children set-up, but also extended families or same-sex relationships."

But she continued: "I still believe some kind of stable family structure is vital and that is what most people want around them. I do not think we should abandon that terrain to the right."

Ms Abbott, in a wide-ranging interview with the Guardian, also warned about the dangers of fast food and internet pornography.

And she condemned parents who dress their children in designer clothes, warning that youngsters are being "saturated by materialism" in an age of "McParenting".

"There is something wrong when the average child knows 300 or 400 brand names before the age of 11," she told the newspaper.

She revealed she is looking at planning laws to see how banning fast food outlets from setting up near schools could be made easier to help tackle child obesity.

The MP also wants local authorities to have more powers to curb the amount of places selling alcohol in a single area.

On internet pornography, she expressed fears about how its proliferation affects children and particularly young girls.

Ms Abbott is due to give a speech later this month on the sexualisation of children and the rise of "sexting" - a type of cyber-bullying using mobile phones.

http://news.sky.com/story/1033227/abbott-feminism-to-blame-for-family-collapse?fb_action_ids=10152120745931190&fb_action _types=og.recommends

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Interesting look at the Divorce industry in America.

[Futuwwa]

Marriage died in the West when it became socially acceptable to break up your family because you felt bored with your spouse, and when the legal system changed to no-fault-divorce, treating the spouse who decided to blow up the marriage equally with the one who wanted to preserve the marriage.

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Well said, its beyond a joke. I think western societies are going to pay a very heavy price in the decades to come. I just hope our faith and culture doesn't get infected with this culture.

Heres another video.

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Another update. This person is interesting, details how the undermining of marriage is undermining the very fabric of American society.

How the destruction of marriage is strangling the feminist welfare state.

The standard narrative is that feminism removed the artificial restrictions that were holding women back, and what we observe today is a level playing field. The Social Pathologist described this in his recent post Hypergamic Affirmative Action:

The social, sexual and economic liberation of women in the latter half of the 20th Century has meant that for the first time women were able to compete with men in society without restriction. The result has been spectacular if not particularly beneficial to the happiness of women. Whilst not all degrees are created equal (men still overwhelming dominate the “hard” fields of knowledge) the fact that there are now more degree credentialed women than men is simply astonishing. As income is broadly correlated with economic well being, its safe to assume that women have been able to achieve a economic parity with men. The manosphere may not like this result but the fact is that women have been able to effectively compete with men when the shackles of social convention have been removed.

What he is describing is the feminist fantasy coming true, and out of respect for the feminists reading I suggest taking a moment to savor the euphoria before we continue.

The problem with his statement is he is ignoring the incredible amount of social engineering required to achieve and maintain the current state. Feminism has become a central organizing force for western culture. Nearly every decision public and private must consider feminism first, and everything else second. This is true for everything from our last ditch nuclear deterrent to men’s entertainment. Even the Word of God must kneel before the word of feminists. The reason this doesn’t come to mind for most people is it is everywhere. It seems normal, if not natural.

What is too easy to forget is that this is artificial, and therefore requires constant effort to maintain. Feminism didn’t demolish a barrier between two seas and let the water levels adjust; it is a massive pumping operation. Turn off the pumps even for a little bit and reality will come flooding back.

The longer we keep the pumps running, the more the true cost of the operation becomes evident. Most of what feminism gained it did on credit of one sort or another, and these bills are coming due. The reality is human biology makes it impossible for a large percentage of women to focus on casual sex and professional advancement to the degree that feminism insists is only natural. The reason for this is children require more investment than women themselves can provide. Women who want to be mothers need to extract resources from men in order to be truly successful parents. Many have looked at the success of a small number of widows in raising their children without the help of a husband and assumed husbands and fathers aren’t really necessary. However, what is possible as an exception isn’t something we can build a society on. Aside from those who started with great wealth, widows have always struggled to provide for and raise their children. In a healthy society made primarily of husband lead households they also benefit from an in tact social and familial structure.

But a husband-lead permanent family structure is something feminists must destroy. They have no choice if they are to achieve their goals. They need to find a way to compel men to provide resources for children while removing men’s authority and women’s responsibility. In a society with traditional marriage men voluntarily agree to produce more than they personally need in order to lead a family. The problem for feminists with this voluntary model is something which is core to all voluntary cooperation agreements; women must give something up in exchange for men doing the same.

There are of course multiple ways to attack this problem of mutuality. While the methods appear different on the surface, the ultimate end is the same; men must be compelled to offer financial (and sometimes parenting) resources to women who want to have children, and women must be freed from reciprocal obligation and responsibility. The methods to achieve this tend to fall into one of three models:

Socialist State Model: The economy of the state must be reorganized to redistribute production. While the stated aim of socialism is to redistribute wealth from rich to poor, in practice this is a very effective tool to redistribute wealth from men to women. In the socialist state model marriage becomes largely irrelevant because the resource transfer is being achieved at a state or corporate level. These resource transfers can take the form of make work jobs, cash benefits, and free or subsidized child care and education (which tend to become one and the same). Marriage tends to be looked down upon in this type of model because women living with men are forever at risk of being “oppressed” by male leadership. Marriage also works counter to the socialist aim of equality of outcome; if some children grow up with fathers (even weak ones) while others lack fathers altogether the children with fathers have a large advantage. This inequality of maternal outcome poses a danger to feminism as well because women who want to give their children an advantage are at risk of suffering from exposure to male authority.

Sham Marriage Model: This is the model preferred by feminists with a sense of nostalgia. In this model great effort is expended to maintain the illusion of marriage as a fundamental and legitimate social institution. While the edifice is left in place however, the institution itself is entirely debased. Husbands are still expected to support and protect their families, but their authority and rights are all removed. Marriage becomes a vehicle for theft, and something women delay as long as possible and discard as soon as it is no longer needed.

The Stanton/Povich Model: Under this model women enjoy their sexual freedom and are free to pursue their goals of education and career without the responsibilities and limitations which come with being a wife. Should such a woman find herself giving birth, she heroically whittles down the list of paternal suspects until she determines the biological father of the child. She then enlists the state to compel the biological father to bankroll her and her children.
What we see in practice tends to be a blending of the three models above. The exact blend of course will vary over time and from country to country, but any country which fits The Social Pathologist’s description has by necessity fully implemented some combination of the three.

The fatal flaws of all three of these models, including their use in blended form, are the same:

• There is insufficient incentive to keep the mass of men producing at the levels needed to transfer enough wealth to women.
• Women who spend their early adulthood focusing on education and career before becoming mothers lead to an enormously expensive mis-allocation of investment in human capital. This exists across all industries but is most easily identified in the case of medical doctors, as The Social Pathologist has witnessed.
• Children don’t just need financial resources, they need a real father. Fathers who aren’t head of the household are a very poor substitute for those who are.
• By prioritizing women’s careers over becoming mothers, the birthrate greatly declines.

While the first two bullets reduce production by existing men below their potential, the last two reduce the number of productive men in future generations. Taken together we end up with reduced numbers of productive men, and less production by those few who exist. These problems aren’t visible at first with feminism however because there is a delay in experiencing the loss of production by men. This gives the initial appearance of a free lunch, where the only result is the increased production associated with women prioritizing paid work. However, this apparent free lunch is simply the inertia of the system; the flaws become progressively more evident from generation to generation.

It is worth reiterating that both the destruction of marriage and the resulting lowered production are ultimately inescapable for any society which makes feminism a priority. There is no way to square this circle, no matter how many people claim it is only natural.

The truth of what I’m describing can be found by opening any economic or business publication. The nations of the west are all facing a time bomb of entitlements caused by demographics moving the wrong way. In the US, Social Security and Medicare present looming demographic threats which get closer every year. Eventually there will be too many people taking out of the system and too few willing or able to produce at the excess levels required to fund them. Discussion of this problem is constant in the financial press, with articles like the one by Forbes titled: America’s Baby Bust: How The Great Recession Has Jeopardized Our Demographic Health

Without these future workers our already tottering pension system will become even more untenable, as is occurring in Europe and Japan.

Of course since feminism is the dominant philosophy of our time the author struggles to understand why birthrates are falling. For some inexplicable reason in the past economic growth has lead to falling birthrates, while economic decline is now also leading to falling birthrates:

Without growth, the long-term decline of most high-income countries, including the United States, is all but assured.

This turns on its head the commonplace assumption that societies reduced their birthrates as they got wealthier.

The problem in the US is worse than it looks on its face. While we remain at near replacement level fertility, the internals of the macro number are cause for concern. Slate explains this in an article subtitled Why America’s widening fertility class divide is a problem. The feminist system comes with perverse incentives regarding family formation. The most capable women are encouraged to delay childbirth as long as possible. At the same time, successful men fear becoming fathers because fatherhood is the bait for the trap feminists and their enablers have set for honest men. Ironically the New York Times can see the disincentive for productive men to become fathers, but only when looking outside of the United States; the headline declares In Europe, Divorce and Separation Become a Burden for Struggling Fathers, and the stories are straight out of the manosphere:

The pain of Europe’s economic crisis is being felt sharply by a new class of people: separated and divorced men who end up impoverished or on the streets as they struggle to maintain themselves while keeping up child support and alimony payments.

The Forbes article cites the NY Times piece, and in an added twist of irony manages to conflate fatherhood and parenthood just in time to miss the point:

Stories about divorced Spanish or Italian young fathers sleeping on the streets or in their cars is not exactly a strong advertising for parenthood.

Making the problem worse is the list of solutions currently on the table. We can go the way suggested by the Slate article, and increase transfers to women with children. Never mind that this brings us back to the core problem. The other solution is to raise taxes, but this exacerbates the productivity problem. In order to tax our way to solvency, we would have to declare a fiscal jihad on the productive. But men are already showing signs of being less willing to create the very excess wealth these taxes are after, for the reasons explained above. If men don’t see the incentive to lead a family, higher taxes will convince ever larger numbers of capable men to decide to get by on just enough to keep themselves comfortable.

https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/10/15/how-the-destruction-of-marriage-is-strangling-the-feminist-welfare-state/

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Another update

4 February 2015: Peter Lloyd on spousal maintenance, BBC Radio 4

An inspired performance by 'Mail Online' journalist Peter Lloyd, debating with a female divorce lawyer who uses the word 'equality' in an utterly laughable sense. The presenter, Eddie Mair, was less toadying towards the female interviewee than is his custom.

[Shalehhudin]

What a comprehensive analysis and thought, brother. It's very ironic, Indeed. It should go back to ourselves what we have done to our father? And certainly we must take part in any role possible to make this fact fixed, make people aware how bad the social system currently in place

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Another update

Bachelor Nation: 70% of Men Aged 20-34 Are Not Married

Seventy percent of American males between the ages of 20 and 34 are not married, and many live in a state of “perpetual adolescence” with ominous consequences for the nation’s future, says Janice Shaw Crouse, author of “Marriage Matters.”

“Far too many young men have failed to make a normal progression into adult roles of responsibility and self-sufficiency, roles generally associated with marriage and fatherhood,” Crouse, the former executive director of the Beverly LaHaye Institute, wrote in a recent Washington Times oped.

The high percentage of bachelors means bleak prospects for millions of young women who dream about a wedding day that may never come. “It’s very, very depressing,” Crouse told CNSNews.com. “They’re not understanding how important it is for the culture, for society, for the strength of the nation to have strong families.”

She pointed out that there’s “no data” to back up the common assertion that a lack of jobs during and after the Great Recession is the primary reason so many young men have been reluctant to tie the knot. “The problem with marriage was long before that,” she pointed out.

After decades of feminism, Crouse noted that young men are now the ones who set the parameters for intimate relationships, and those increasingly do not include a wedding ring.

“And I know the feminists just yell and scream if you say anything like this, but time was, girls set the cultural morays, the standards, the parameters for intimate activity. The girls were the ones that set those boundaries. And now it’s the guys who do,” Crouse told CNSNews.com.

“And it’s doubly terrible because the colleges now are predominantly female. So you have some – up to 60 percent of the student bodies are female. And almost all of them are more than 50 percent female. And so the ratio [of] male/female is out of sync.

“And that means the girls have to live by the guys’ demands. And that means less romance. They don’t date. The girls, I have talked to numerous young women, lament the fact that they don’t have the opportunity to dress up and go out for an event.”

Young women who adhere to a moral code and refuse to participate in the “hook up” culture are now considered social misfits, Crouse pointed out. And they face even more daunting odds of finding a husband than their promiscuous sisters.

“It’s really interesting, because Mark Regnerus and Jeremy Uecker wrote their book, “Premarital Sex in America,” what, three, four years ago. And even then, they were very concerned about the fact that young women today are not as likely to get married. And their prospects, if they are not sexually promiscuous, are really low because the guys, if they can sleep around, they’re not interested in going with the girls who don’t put out.

“The ones who are very serious get married early. And that leaves the majority of the girls, then, by the time they’re 25 and into their first jobs, the pickings are very, very slim for them. And Mark Regnerus was very, very clear that the quote ‘good girls’ are the ones who are at risk now in terms of not being able to get married.”

According to 2014 data from the U.S. Census Bureau, 7.9 million opposite sex couples in the U.S. live together but are not married. A 2014 study by Johns Hopkins University also found that 57 percent of children born to women aged 26 to 31 are out of wedlock.

Crouse says the decline in marriage and a corresponding rise in cohabitation is happening despite at least a decade of research demonstrating the societal benefits of two-parent families.

“Even researchers from the left are coming out very strongly for the family and for marriage, and saying the two-parent family is necessary for children to do their best," she told CNSNews.com. "It’s not just good for them, it’s the very best. It’s the gold standard. It’s essential for children to reach their potential. And that has to be communicated in the popular culture."

According to “projections based on census data, when today’s young adults reach their mid-40s to mid-50s, a record high share (25%) is likely to have never been married,” Pew Research noted in a 2014 study documenting the decline of marriage in the U.S.

But men are not entirely to blame for the steep decline in marriage, Crouse pointed out. “A lot of women fear marriage. While feminism is a spent force, the ultimate consequences of that philosophy is a whole generation of women who don’t want any man to tell them what to do, and don’t really understand the give and take that is necessary for a marriage relationship.”

However, the box office success of movies like American Sniper, which features a very masculine Navy SEAL, is an indication that women still respond to strong men, she said.

CNSNews.com asked Crouse if that means the cultural pendulum has finally swung back in the male direction after decades of feminism.

“That’s not certain yet,” she replied. “There’ still a lot of anti-male stuff out there.”

Feminism has largely achieved its goal of equality in the workplace, so the movement has “lost relevance” for young women who are now earning more college and professional degrees than men, she pointed out. However, feminism’s effects on the culture – including the historically low marriage rate - will linger for some time to come, she noted.

“Feminism was supposed to bring women happiness,” Crouse said. “But the research shows that women today are much more unhappy then they have been in the past. They’ve ended up with far more opportunities, but their personal happiness is way down.”

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/bachelor-nation-70-men-aged-20-34-are-not-married

Kryten
What you're seeing is a rational response to the fact that marriage has far more risks than benefits for men associated with it. Its a simple cost / benefit calculation that many men are making, some conciously, some not.

Its the culmination of a feminist centred society that refuses to treat men as human beings - and until that changes the situation will only continue.

[Karl]

"Girls with absent fathers (according to studies in the USA and New Zealand) have teenage pregnancy rates seven or eight times as high as those whose fathers have stayed in meaningful touch with them."
Nothing in the Quran against teenage pregnancy. Also only women can get pregnant, a "girl" is a prepubescent female human. The best time for females to get pregnant is in the second decade of life, two years after first menses, by scientific standards. 12 years old is the best time for an average European woman to get pregnant, by scientific research.

For the breakdown of the family you can thank feminism for that.

BTW there is no "Father's Day" in Islam.

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Another update

Debtors prisons are an essential tool of our new public policy.

Earlier this month Christopher Mathias at Huffington Post connected the Walter Scott case to our new family model in: One-Eighth Of South Carolina Inmates Were Jailed Over Child Support Payments. Walter Scott Was One Of Them.

But Scott, who was killed on Saturday by police officer Michael Slager in North Charleston, South Carolina, had also long struggled to pay child support. In 2008, he went to jail for a full six months after falling behind by $6,800 in child support payments,according to The Associated Press. Scott spent one night in jail in both 2011 and 2012, again because he owed thousands in child support. At the time of Scott’s death, there was awarrant out for his arrest due to failure to make child support payments. (Scott also had a history of convictions and arrests for other offenses, according to The Post And Courier, a Charleston paper.)

The knowledge of the arrest warrant for failed payments is likely what spurred Scott to run from Slager on Saturday during a traffic stop over a broken taillight.

“He said that’s what he would do, he would run, because he’s not going to jail for child support,” Scott’s other brother, Rodney, told MSNBC.

In a video shot by a bystander, Slager can be seen shooting Scott — who was unarmed — eight times as he ran away. Scott died, and Slager is now facing murder charges.

Mathias presents astounding statistics on the number of men who are incarcerated in South Carolina at the order of family court judges:

In 2009, Patterson conducted a survey of 33 county jails in South Carolina, which found that one out of every eight inmates — or 13.2 percent of the inmate population — was behind bars for contempt of civil court after falling behind on child support payments. In Charleston County, where Walter owed his back payments on child support, Patterson’s survey found that over 15 percent of inmates had been imprisoned for not paying child support. In a handful of the other counties studied, the figure was as high as 20 percent.

Men caught in this system do not have basic due process rights:

Turner’s case ended up in front of the Supreme Court, which ruled in a 5-4 decision in 2011 that the right to counsel only applied to criminal cases, not to people in civil or family court proceedings.

As capricious as this all sounds, there is a method to the madness here. These men are being imprisoned to sustain a very recent and profound social revolution. They are being imprisoned to facilitate the destruction of traditional marriage so that a new family structure, one instead based on child support, can take the place of marriage. To understand this, you need to understand the four key objectives which are being achieved by imprisoning so many men.

1) Create the illusion that unwed mothers are not in fact irresponsible welfare queens.

This is crucial to the moral acceptance of unwed motherhood. For our new system to function as desired, single mothers must be absolved of all social stigma. Our new system goes to great lengths to absolve single mothers of stigma, and part of this is removing the stigma of welfare paid to single mothers. The new assumption is that financially secure unwed motherhood is a right of all women, and that any welfare payments unwed mothers receive are really just child support by another name:

Out of the $105 billion in child support debt nationwide, the government claims half so it can seek to recoup the costs of welfare benefits provided to low-income families. Our current welfare program, called Temporary Aid to Needy Families (“TANF”), requires custodial parents applying for benefits to cooperate in establishing child support obligations against the absent parents and to simultaneously assign the resulting child support payments to the government. Mothers, fathers, and children all become government debtors—the mothers and children owe their child support rights and the fathers owe the payments until the welfare benefits are repaid in full.

As Mathias notes, very large numbers of the men in prison for unpaid child support are poor. These men are in prison not because they refused to pay, but because they couldn’t afford to pay. More to the point, they are in prison because unwed motherhood causes tremendous harm to children and our society. In order to absolve the mothers themselves, we must transfer the entire stigma and responsibility to men. A crime against children requires that someone be punished harshly. The men in prison for child support are in this sense sacrificial lambs, being punished in order to absolve all unwed mothers of their moral responsibility for the suffering of their children.

2) Enforce the new quota based system.

A marriage based family structure creates natural incentives for men to work hard to support their families. We have replaced the Western/Christian marriage based family system with a soviet style system, and just like the soviet system our new system requires threats of imprisonment for men who don’t produce as much as the state thinks they should.

3) Facilitate the removal of the father from the home to “empower” women.

The aim of our new child support based family model is to enable women to destroy their families but still receive the benefits which previously only came with marriage. Child support (and the threats of imprisonment which sustain it) is designed to allow women to have children with men who are unfit to be husbands, and/or to eject a husband from the home. South Carolina divorce attorney Gregory S. Forman explains that in cases where the couple is married the child support process generally can’t start until the wife ejects the husband from the home in Five Ways to Get a Spouse Out of the House:

When a marriage is no longer working, one spouse typically wants the other spouse to leave. However, until the parties actually separate, the Family Court lacks the power to determine custody or support issues (though the court can, under circumstances noted below, order one spouse to leave and then set custody and support). Thus, absent a written separation agreement, there are important strategic advantages to staying in the house…

It is quite common for unhappy wives to ask their husbands to leave. Since the husband is typically the person with the financial obligations and the wife will typically be the residential custodial parent, it behooves the husband to remain in the home until he negotiates a separation agreement with financial obligations he can meet and parenting rights he can accept.

Forman goes on to describe the legal strategies wives most commonly use to get their husbands out of the home so the whole process can begin. Number one on his list of legal strategies is for the wife to claim* domestic abuse. This both ejects the father from the home and converts him from (nominal) head of household to child support payer:

The two major advantages to Domestic Abuse actions are that they are provide prompt access to the court and that there is not a high threshold to prove domestic abuse. Hearings must be set within fifteen days of the filing of a petition (§ 20-4-50 (b)) and can be set within 24 hours in an emergency situation. § 20-4-50 (a). The definition of abuse includes “assault, or the threat of physical harm,” so an actual physical harm does not have to be proven. § 20-4-20 (a)(1).

In addition to providing the abused petitioner possession of the marital domicile, the Domestic Abuse order can also provide for temporary spousal and child support, custody and visitation.

Not surprisingly, this process is frequently manipulated by wives in exactly the way it is designed to be used:

Since Domestic Abuse orders are quick and efficient methods for getting a spouse out of the house, they are subject to abuse. Spouses will often attempt to prompt or instigate fights in order to call the police and set up domestic abuse proceedings. Since much domestic abuse becomes a “he said/she said” swearing contest, it is important to protect a client from false allegations of domestic abuse. In situations in which a client might be subjected to false allegations of domestic abuse, the purchase of a small hand-held tape (or even video) recorder is useful. Then, whenever the other spouse attempts to prompt a physical altercation, the client merely needs to hold the recorder up and start recording (announcing “tell it to the nice Family Court Judge, honey” when the client begins recording, adds an entertaining-though not always calming-touch).

Note that men are guilty until proven innocent in this case, and that it is well known that wives will commonly act as aggressors in order to claim victim-hood. Forman’s Marie Antoinette-esque solution to “let them carry tape recorders” overlooks the reality that the system is working precisely as designed. Iraq war vet Joseph Kerr describes how the system is designed in “What Do You Do When A Girl Hits You?”

Finally it was going to end. She wanted to move out of state with the kids and had no interest in discussing sharing custody. “We’re not discussing it, you can’t stop us from leaving. Sign it or I’ll get a lawyer and make you sign it.” She handed me a do-it-yourself version of divorce papers.

I reached out to some divorce lawyers. This life sucks for me, for the kids, for everyone. What do I do? “It’s a game of chicken in your house now,” the he said. “Neither one of you can leave with the kids, and the first one who leaves without them is a step behind in trying to get custody.”

Is there a worse possible way to resolve such a pending disaster?

Then the email confirmation — plane tickets, one adult, two children, one way, leaving soon. Tomorrow morning would be different, but sleeping on the couch was normal. I ended up on the ground next to the stairs. She kicked my head into the solid wood base. I blacked out, came to, stood up, bleeding. My daughter was screaming, “Stop hurting daddy!”

Kerr made the mistake of going to the police after the assault. He was then arrested because all it took was for his wife to claim that he threatened her, and the process kicked in as designed:

“You wife is telling a bit of a different story, as happens a lot in these situations, she says you threatened her.”

“We’re going to take you into custody now.”

“Stand up and put your hands behind your back.”

An hour later I was handcuffed to a hospital bed waiting for CAT scan results to know if my head was bleeding.

After being released from jail with an order to not contact his wife or his children for a year, and with his bank accounts drained, Kerr asked his lawyer what he should have done in this incident. Her response:

“Run. Run and don’t go to the police.”

Kerr tells us this wasn’t his wife’s first assault against him:

She grabbed me and ripped my shirt. Her nails cut my face. I bled. I tried to walk out the door. She blocked the door. I was a gym-every-day, active duty Marine, fearing someone a fraction of my size. If she had a penis I’d have a dozen ways to put her on the ground. Instead, I was left to sneak out a bedroom window and spend the night in a parking lot.

This is a well known pattern, as Web MD notes in their article Help for Battered Men**:

“We tell men if they have to be in an argument, do it in a room with two doors so they can leave; a lot of times a woman will block the door, the man will try to move her, and that will be enough for him to get arrested.”

In the past our family structure was designed to keep families intact. Our new family structure is designed primarily to break them apart.

4) Dis-empower husbands and fathers in order to empower wives and mothers.

The overarching goal of the new system is to empower women, and in order to do this power must be taken from men and given to women. Fundamentally, the objective is to create a system where women can become mothers without being beholden to a man. The most obvious incarnations of this involve single motherhood. However, the system is also designed achieve the same goal in a more subtle way, by making husbands powerless for those women who wish to remain nominally married. All of the machinery designed to crush the father and remove him from the home can also be used to change the power dynamics within marriage. The mere threat of using this cruel system is as feminist economists Wolfers and Stevens delightedly explain a “potent tool” for wives to use to gain power over their husbands (emphasis mine):

The mechanism examined in this paper is a change in divorce regime and we interpret the evidence collected here as an empirical endorsement of the idea that family law provides a potent tool for affecting outcomes within families.

*Forman says “prove” instead of claim, but then goes on to describe how claims are generally taken as proof.
**Archived here in case the article is edited to remove the advice.

See also Vox Day’s post Child support is modern debt slavery

https://dalrock.wordpress.com/

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Another update

Black Fathers [Don’t] Matter.

With the riots in Baltimore one of the issues being discussed is the breakdown of the Black family. Phillip Bump at the Washington Post tackles this very question in Rand Paul cites a ‘lack of fathers’ in Baltimore. Here’s what the data actually show.

In 2013, the Department of Health and Human Services released a study of father-child interactions between 2006 and 2010. It looked at how often black, white and Hispanic fathers lived with and interacted with their children.

The stats he presents are a bit of a let down, and at times don’t make sense. More striking however is how the Health and Human Services report he is getting his data from defines a father. Who’s your daddy? Why any man who is living in the same house while banging your mom!

Not all men are biological fathers and not all fathers have biological children. In addition to fathering a child, men may become fathers through adoption—which confers the same legal status, protections, and responsibilities to the man and the child as fathering a biological child. Men also may become de facto fathers when they marry or cohabit with women who have children from previous relationships, that is, they are raising stepchildren or their cohabiting partner’s children. In this report, men were defined as fathers if they had biological or adopted children or if step- or partner’s children were living in the household.

HHS is not the only US government agency to do this though. As I’ve shared previously, the US Census uses a very similar definition of father:

Children are defined in this report as all individuals under 18 years old. The survey asks respondents to identify the child’s mother and/or father if they are present in the household. A separate question asks respondents to identify the type of relationship between each child and parent, whether biological, step, or adoptive. All living arrangements are as of the time of the interview.

Stepchildren are identified by the survey respondent, and their stepparent may not be currently married to the child’s other coresidential parent.

While HHS says any man currently shacking up with mom counts as the father, the Census says any man currently shacking up with mom counts as the father so long as mom says so. Either way, fathers clearly can’t matter that much to the US government if distinguishing between the actual father and the man currently banging mom isn’t important.

I understand that the lines can become blurred here with stepfathers, but not only does this government report not distinguish between legal fathers and stepfathers, it expands the definition of stepfather to mean any man currently shacked up with mom.

There are other ways we can tell that fathers don’t matter (and therefore Black fathers don’t matter). Under our current family system fathers are a sort of deputy parent. Just like a sheriff’s deputy serves at the pleasure of the sheriff, a father in an intact family serves at the pleasure of the mother. Our entire family court structure is designed to facilitate the removal of the father should the mother decide she no longer wants him to be part of the family unit. How important can fathers really be, when we have a massive and brutal bureaucracy devoted to helping mothers kick them out of the house?

Lastly, a comment on What Do the Ten Most Dangerous Cities in America Have in Common? that I’ve shared previously is highly relevant:

On a side note, this post catalogs the effects of marriage; but not just any kind of marriage. It documents the need for the kind of marriage where parents, especially men, exert a substantial moral influence, and doing so in neighborhoods which maintain that moral influence. It’s not only that we have parents, but that those parents have a job to do, and society depends on them doing it effectively.

As Cane Caldo astutely notes, the Baltimore single mother of 6 being feted by the media as mother of the year for severely disciplining her riotous son would have been seen very differently if she were a father:

…The media and civil authorities would be outraged if there were video of the young man’s father whooping his son’s ass up and down the street; punching him in the face, jerking him around by the hoodie, and pushing him back home. I imagine that cops would take time out fighting for their lives to arrest such a father.

https://dalrock.wordpress.com/

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Another update.

Interesting video on why the modern state is very keen on undermining traditional families.

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Another update

Disrespecting respectability, dishonoring the honorable.

In The Revenge of The Lost Boys* Tom Nichols begins with a familiar question:

What’s going on with young American men?

Nichols focuses primarily on examples of men that Vox Day categorizes as gammas:

Beyond this, they seem to share little beyond a stubborn immaturity wedded to a towering narcissism.

…

Stuck in perpetual adolescence, they see only their own imagined virtue amidst irredeemable corruption.

…the combination of immaturity and grandiosity among these young males is jaw-dropping in its scale even when it is not expressed through the barrel of a gun.

…

These young losers live through heroic fantasies and constructed identities rather than through work and human relationships.

…these man-boys are confused about their sexuality and frustrated by their own social awkwardness, and seek to compensate for it. They turn into what German writer Hans Enzensberger called “the radicalized losers,” the unsuccessful males who channel their blunted male social impulses toward destruction.

Yet as the title and opening question both suggest, Nichols isn’t just concerned about a handful of destructive gammas in the news. Nichols is concerned about the overall loss of masculine virtue. He also has a basic understanding of what has gone wrong:

What we don’t really want to think about, because it challenges our cherished political narratives, is why modern society creates such destructive outcasts…

We, the adults, have made this generation of young men by allowing, over the course of some 40 years, the eventual construction of a hyper-sexualized, publicity-obsessed, winner-take-all twenty-first-century culture in which success means money, sex, and fame at any cost. Young males no longer live in a world where there’s a Jack for every Jill, or where social institutions like schools, the police, churches, or the military—all decimated by repeated social attack since the 1960s—provide some kind of equalizing effect among men, protecting and building up the weaker boys while disciplining and maturing the stronger ones.

This is true, but there is more to it than this. As Novaseeker points out, there is also the problem of perverse incentives. Men are motivated by sex. When society was ordered around lifetime marriage, the way for a young man to pursue sex was to focus on becoming an attractive potential husband. With our embrace of female promiscuity and disdain for traditional marriage, we have created a system where from a practical perspective men are foolish to seek marriage as their path to sex.

The links between men, marriage and civilization.

As a society we benefit enormously from men who are channeling their energy towards first becoming and then being productive husbands and fathers. However, like so many others Nichols misunderstands the relationship between men, marriage, and civilization:

The traditional venues for male socialization (including marriage) have mostly vanished…

Marriage isn’t what socializes and civilizes men. Marriage is the incentive for men to first work to civilize themselves, and then to lead and protect civilization. But the incentive of marriage isn’t limited just to sex. In a healthy society marriage offers an even more powerful reward for men than sex. In a healthy society, marriage and fatherhood confer something even more precious to men, respect.

Respect is a more powerful motivator for men than sex.

This may at first glance seem unlikely. Sex is an incredibly powerful motivator, especially for young men. There is also the problem of overlap, as for men gaining respect is generally a path to sexual success. However, we can both untangle the two and behold the incredible power of respect as an incentive for men by looking at what respect will motivate men to do that promises of sex cannot.

While men will take great risks in part out of a desire for sex, the desire for respect goes even further. The men who willingly gave their lives at Thermopylae did not do so with the expectation of being rewarded with sex. There were no 72 virgins promised to these men. Nor did they entertain the fantasy that they would somehow route the Persian horde and return in triumph. Their motivation, their goal at the Hot Gates was to die an honorable death and thereby earn the profound respect of their society. Likewise the nearly 4,000 Kamikaze pilots in WWII didn’t expect to return home and be lavished with sex. Honor was the only reward for their act of sacrifice.

Withholding respect from the respectable.

As a society we have become incredibly miserly when it comes to respect for men. In addition, the respect we do offer tends to be for men who are working against and not for civilization. Men who work to become husbands and fathers are viewed with either contempt or deep suspicion.

This disdain for respectable men isn’t only coming out of secular Hollywood or the radical feminists leading Women’s Studies departments. This same disdain for husbands and fathers is held with surprising fervor by conservatives, especially conservative Christians. It has become a tradition for pastors to use Father’s Day, a day set aside to honor fathers, as a day to tear husbands and fathers down in front of their families. Christian media is no better. Just like secular movies, Christian movies portray husbands and fathers as villains, failures, and buffoons. Respect is offered to the wise and sexy tattoo artist biker, while respectable husbands and fathers are trashed.

Even when we talk about the family courts, the issue of respect is front and center. Family courts put into concrete action the disdain our society has for fathers. In response to our society’s disdain and contempt for fathers, they have made their primary mission the removal of husbands and fathers from the household. When we talk about the problems of the family courts, we need to consider not just the punishments the courts stand ever ready to meet out against husbands and fathers, but the profound disrespect these punishments represent.

What is most surprising about young men today is not that a handful are acting out in cowardly and destructive ways, nor that a larger but still small number are less conspicuously** opting out of the respectable path as we treat respectability with contempt. What is most surprising is that most men still pursue marriage and fatherhood despite how hard we have been working as a society to discourage them from doing so. What should frighten us isn’t that decades of trashing marriage and fatherhood have produced a small number of men who eschew these responsibilities, but that eventually a generation of young men will arrive which fully internalizes what we are quite loudly telling them:

Only chumps get married, and only a fool would become a father.

https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2015/07/09/disrespecting-respectability-dishonoring-the-honorable/#comments

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Another update

There IS a way to raise women's pay, Dave... and it's not more baby farms

Nobody in Britain still pays women less than men for doing the same job. They wouldn’t dare. So why does the leader of the So-Called Conservative Party say he wants to ‘end the gender pay gap within a generation’?

Dressed up as a demand for equality, it is in fact a determined attack on what is left of family life in this country. This is a legitimate point of view, though I loathe it. The Left have always preferred the state to the family. The interesting thing is that a supposedly pro-family party now takes the same line.

The So-Called Conservatives pretend to be alarmed by the Leftism of people like Jeremy Corbyn, but these days they really aren’t much different from him. Rigid, state-enforced sex-equality is a Marxist policy, pursued to the outer limits in the old East Germany and now being adopted here.

Average male pay is higher than average female pay for a simple reason. Despite decades of enforced equality, women still have babies, and men still don’t. So women who wish to spend any substantial time at all with their own offspring will fall behind in their careers, and their earnings will be less.

Despite all efforts to blur the old boundaries between the sexes, this problem of who has the babies is likely to remain so for a few decades yet. It’s not polite to mention it, or the effect that it must have on women’s careers.

When the Left-wing New Statesman dared to mention last week that many successful women politicians are childless, this statement of an objective truth was met with rage and contempt.

The exceptions, in general, have been rich enough to afford the sort of expensive childcare that is way beyond the reach of most.

We’re not supposed to mention that either.

Whenever you see a power couple, man and woman both highly successful, pictured with their children, there’ll always be a costly nanny and/or a willing grandma hidden in the background.

These vital people are rarely seen, named or even acknowledged, because they mess up the ‘You can have it all’ propaganda.

You can only have it all, in reality, if you have servants.

And the millions of ordinary couples struggling to raise children and earn two incomes realise pretty quickly that this is so.

And for growing numbers of these women, there’s a terrible choice between career and motherhood.

Choose your children, lose your career. Choose your career, hand over your children to strangers.

I can already hear the militant voices squeaking: ‘What about the fathers?’

I’d only say that most men aren’t as good at raising children as women – once a statement of the obvious, now a subversive heresy.

Good luck to those men who want to be full-time fathers. But, given the chance, it would be mainly women raising children.

The trouble is that if large numbers of women took career-breaks to raise their young, average pay would stay unequal for ever.

If we were seriously worried about this, we would find a way of bringing women back into senior positions in the workforce after they had finished the job of bringing up their children.

Such women have a huge store of wisdom, responsibility and experience. A rational society would rush to employ them in senior posts. But we do not.

As it is, the only solution we offer is the nationalisation of childhood by vast state-subsidised networks of misnamed childcare. Which is what the East German communists wanted, as it meant there was less private life, more conformism and more loyalty to the state.

Does David Cameron want this? If he doesn’t, why does he support a policy which leads to it? If he does, in what way is he a conservative?

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/

[Karl]

Maybe Cameron is a conservative communist, he is Jewish and in league with the Zionist grand plan. There are no right wing or conservative governments in the West anymore, just many shades of red. That's why they are at war with Islam, it is the last power of conservatism. And the heathens (followers of the old ways) but they are low in numbers.

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Another update on the breakdown of the family.

Class War Against the Family

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Long time, another update, confirms what many already suspected. The destruction of the traditional family was engineered.

PETER HITCHENS: A fight for equality? No, it's a plot to wipe out marriage

The campaign to get rid of marriage has not gone away. Civil partnerships for heterosexuals were not thrown out by the Appeal Court last week, only put off till later. They will come.

In fact, after 20 years of New Labour government (some of it nominally Tory) we can now look back and survey the smoking ruins of marriage. It’s not that the New Labour radicals and their Tory imitators wrecked marriage on their own. It’s just that they have more or less finished it off.

The very words ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ have been erased from official forms and even from normal conversation. We all have partners now, whether we want to or not.

Divorce figures have fallen only because so many couples don’t get married in the first place. The marriage statistics show that more and more people simply aren’t bothering to make any sort of legal commitment at all before setting up home and starting a family.

As Lady Justice Hale, now tipped to be boss of the Supreme Court, said in 1982: ‘Family law now makes no attempt to buttress the stability of marriage or any other union,’ adding ‘the piecemeal erosion of the distinction between marriage and non-marital cohabitation may be expected to continue.’ And how.

Marriage has a strange, unique status in the courts. If you break a contract with your building society or a car leasing company, the law will come down against you.

If you break the marriage contract, the law will take your side and will eventually throw the other party out of the marital home if she or he insists on sticking to the original deal. Odd, eh? It’s amazing how many men, the usual victims of this strange arrangement, still get married at all.

I’d guess that marriage figures are artificially swollen each year by an unknown but large number of fake weddings, aimed at getting round immigration laws. Who can say? By their nature, such things aren’t always easy to detect.

But the liberal-thinking classes have for decades loathed and sought to undermine marriage. They hate it as a conservative, religious tradition which accepts that men and women are different, which is intensely private and gets in the way of the enlightened, paternal state they love so much.

The Left’s new allies, globalist commerce, also hate marriage (especially the sort where the mother stays at home) because it stops them from employing women as cheap, pliant labour and turning them into incessant consumers. This is a long campaign.

The radical Professor Edmund Leach, awarded the influential Reith lectures by the ‘impartial’ BBC, sneered back in 1967 that ‘the family, with its narrow privacy and tawdry secrets, is the source of all our discontents’.

He spoke of ‘parents and children huddled together in their loneliness’ and suggested children grow up in larger, more relaxed domestic groups, ‘something like an Israeli kibbutz, perhaps, or a Chinese commune’. Yes, he really said that.

Political radicals sympathised with this view, but in frontline politics they tended to get married. You’ll have to guess why, but I draw your attention to the marriage of Ed Miliband to the mother of his children, Justine, in May 2011, soon after he rather unexpectedly became leader of the Labour Party.

Compare and contrast them with New Labour’s true genius and mastermind, Alastair Campbell, and the mother of his children, Fiona Millar, the great apostle of comprehensive schools.

At the 2001 memorial service for Tony Benn’s wife Caroline, Fiona expressed delight at the singing of the Communist anthem, The Internationale, saying: ‘Great to hear language we aren’t allowed to use any longer.’

These two lifelong radicals have never married.

Nor, of course, have many similar sorts in the media and other areas of life where there is no pressure from spin doctors to do so. You must have noticed this.

It is a deliberate revolution, not an accident of nature.

I doubt most people ever even realised it was going on, but will we be better off when it is – as it soon will be – triumphant?

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/

[xboxisdead]

I have a question to ask. Isn't all that above shows how easily fathers can be removed from society than mothers? Honestly, I see no reason for me to get married myself.

For one thing I don't want to get married and lose all my power and become a slave of some strange woman and her children. Living alone=I take care of people who I want to take care of and it comes from the heart and I am no slave to any creature.

I don't want to have man cave. Sit in some basement with some spiders while the wife and children take over all my house. I don't care for that.
No thanks. Living alone=My entire house is my castle!!

I don't want to live with someone who can easily castrate me physically and psychological and have everyone point their fingers at me and laugh at me. Confirming again that my dignity and honor hold squad. Living alone=I am more masculine living alone than get married to some wife and raising her kids.

There is so little value now of husbands and fathers to be honest in this world. Living alone=I feel positive and don't feel lowered and devalued.

When I am married the wife can take over 90% of my wealth after divorce and she can divorce me anytime she feels like it. There is no security for me in marriage to keep my wealth or access to the children. She can take all my wealth, my house, kick me out of the street, make the children hate me and cut any ties between me and the children in hopes I commit suicide or do psychological torture. Living alone=The wealth is mine even if it is just 15k dollars a year...but that is my 15k and belongs to me and I share it with no one and I have no offspring that are my enemies and nor do I have psychological torture.


Conclusion: I find fathers and husbands disappearing is liberating and happy to hear it actually. I hope it becomes permanent. Let women be on their own, defend on their own and raise children on their own. That actually gives ;D on my face. I find children crying for dads and weeping and wishing they had dads when they are deprived of dads gives me a huge smile :D...because that is the only way a man can sense have value as a father and as a husband. But if he actually lives with a woman and his children he will be completely stepped on, devalued and unappreciated and expected like some slave driver driving for his master and some dog. Hearing children scream for their dads makes my heart flip like the wing of butterfly.

[azc]

I have a question to ask. Isn't all that above shows how easily fathers can be removed from society than mothers? Honestly, I see no reason for me to get married myself. For one thing I don't want to get married and lose all my power and become a slave of some strange woman and her children. Living alone=I take care of people who I want to take care of and it comes from the heart and I am no slave to any creature.I don't want to have man cave. Sit in some basement with some spiders while the wife and children take over all my house. I don't care for that.No thanks. Living alone=My entire house is my castle!!I don't want to live with someone who can easily castrate me physically and psychological and have everyone point their fingers at me and laugh at me. Confirming again that my dignity and honor hold squad. Living alone=I am more masculine living alone than get married to some wife and raising her kids.There is so little value now of husbands and fathers to be honest in this world. Living alone=I feel positive and don't feel lowered and devalued.When I am married the wife can take over 90% of my wealth after divorce and she can divorce me anytime she feels like it. There is no security for me in marriage to keep my wealth or access to the children. She can take all my wealth, my house, kick me out of the street, make the children hate me and cut any ties between me and the children in hopes I commit suicide or do psychological torture. Living alone=The wealth is mine even if it is just 15k dollars a year...but that is my 15k and belongs to me and I share it with no one and I have no offspring that are my enemies and nor do I have psychological torture.Conclusion: I find fathers and husbands disappearing is liberating and happy to hear it actually. I hope it becomes permanent. Let women be on their own, defend on their own and raise children on their own. That actually gives ;D on my face. I find children crying for dads and weeping and wishing they had dads when they are deprived of dads gives me a huge smile :D...because that is the only way a man can sense have value as a father and as a husband. But if he actually lives with a woman and his children he will be completely stepped on, devalued and unappreciated and expected like some slave driver driving for his master and some dog. Hearing children scream for their dads makes my heart flip like the wing of butterfly.

marriage is an essential part of a Muslim's life

[xboxisdead]

marriage is an essential part of a Muslim's life

Sorry, I don't want to be slave and servant of a woman where my presence is determined by her well and anytime she is done with me I am hand her all my wealth and child support and say good bye to her and her children after I have some connection to that child. Sorry. I prefer single life. I am surprised men wish to marry is beyond my understanding. ^o)

[azc]

Sorry, I don't want to be slave and servant of a woman where my presence is determined by her well and anytime she is done with me I am hand her all my wealth and child support and say good bye to her and her children after I have some connection to that child. Sorry. I prefer single life. I am surprised men wish to marry is beyond my understanding. ^o)

weird thinking..................... !

[xboxisdead]

"Girls with absent fathers (according to studies in the USA and New Zealand) have teenage pregnancy rates seven or eight times as high as those whose fathers have stayed in meaningful touch with them."
Nothing in the Quran against teenage pregnancy. Also only women can get pregnant, a "girl" is a prepubescent female human. The best time for females to get pregnant is in the second decade of life, two years after first menses, by scientific standards. 12 years old is the best time for an average European woman to get pregnant, by scientific research.

For the breakdown of the family you can thank feminism for that.

BTW there is no "Father's Day" in Islam.

Actually there is no "Mother's Day" in Islam.

Actually there is no "Women's Day" in Islam.

Actually there is no "Sister's Day" in Islam.

Actually there is no "Valentine's Day" in Islam.

It is not just there is no "Father's Day" in Islam and I am happy that there is no "Father's Day", because "Father's Day" is an insult to fathers...a huge insult. "Mother's Day" is an insult to mothers a huge insult and yet we celebrate it with positive smile on our faces.

Oh by the way, there is no such thing as "Birthday" in Islam.

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Another update

The war on marriage? It is all about controlling YOUR children

Why does our new power elite hate lifelong marriage so much? Why does the legal arm of that elite, the Supreme Court, hand out what is left of the privileges of marriage to those who won’t get married, as it did with the widowed parents’ allowance on Thursday?

Why does the propaganda arm of our ruling class, the BBC, promote a drama called Wanderlust with publicity which, in the BBC’s own words, ‘asks whether lifelong monogamy is possible – or even desirable’. You know as well as I do that they’re not really asking.

They are saying, amid countless wearisome and embarrassing bedroom scenes, that it is neither possible nor desirable. This is a lie, as millions of honest, generous and kind men and women proved in the better generations which came before this one.

Our modern upper crust hate marriage because it is a fortress of private life. They hate it above all because they can’t control it, because it is the place where the next generation learn how to be distinct, thinking individuals instead of conformist robots.

It is where they discover the truth about the past, the lore of the tribe, the traditions and beliefs that make us who we are. It is where they become capable of being free.

But our new rulers don’t want that. They don’t want fully formed people who know who they are and where they come from. They want obedient, placid consumers, slumped open-mouthed in front of screens, drugged into flaccid apathy (legally or illegally, the Government don’t care which), slaving all hours in the dreary low-wage, high-tax economy they are so busily creating.

Much better if they’ve never heard of the great golden drama of our national history and literature, so they don’t know what they’re missing and don’t care.

They would prefer the young to be brought up in a sort of moral car park, knowing nothing except what they are told by authority and the advertising industry. In this brave new world, sex is a spectacle and a sport, solemn oaths are worthless, and duty is a joke.

In this, they are much like the Soviet Communists, who deliberately made divorce as easy as crossing the road, and made absolutely sure that hardly any parents could afford to stay at home to raise their own children.

They have not yet gone quite as far as them – Soviet children were encouraged to worship, as a martyr, a semi-mythical figure called Pavlik Morozov, who was supposedly killed by his grandfather after informing on his own parents to the secret police. Russian friends of mine brought up in this vicious cult shuddered at the memory. But if you look carefully, you will see a ghostly shadow of this culture of denunciation growing up in our midst. And, as we forget all our long history of freedom and justice, it will become easier for such things to happen.

After all, we have long been used to the sight, on TV, of police officers smashing down front doors, or conducting dawn raids – and of being expected to approve of it.

An Englishman’s home is not his castle. And his life is not his own. That is what all this means, and will mean.

Amid the grunts and the creaking of bedsprings, and the pompous phrases of the judges, listen hard and you can hear them weaving Britain’s winding sheet.

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/

[xboxisdead]

Salaam

Another update

The war on marriage? It is all about controlling YOUR children

Why does our new power elite hate lifelong marriage so much? Why does the legal arm of that elite, the Supreme Court, hand out what is left of the privileges of marriage to those who won’t get married, as it did with the widowed parents’ allowance on Thursday?

Why does the propaganda arm of our ruling class, the BBC, promote a drama called Wanderlust with publicity which, in the BBC’s own words, ‘asks whether lifelong monogamy is possible – or even desirable’. You know as well as I do that they’re not really asking.

They are saying, amid countless wearisome and embarrassing bedroom scenes, that it is neither possible nor desirable. This is a lie, as millions of honest, generous and kind men and women proved in the better generations which came before this one.

Our modern upper crust hate marriage because it is a fortress of private life. They hate it above all because they can’t control it, because it is the place where the next generation learn how to be distinct, thinking individuals instead of conformist robots.

It is where they discover the truth about the past, the lore of the tribe, the traditions and beliefs that make us who we are. It is where they become capable of being free.

But our new rulers don’t want that. They don’t want fully formed people who know who they are and where they come from. They want obedient, placid consumers, slumped open-mouthed in front of screens, drugged into flaccid apathy (legally or illegally, the Government don’t care which), slaving all hours in the dreary low-wage, high-tax economy they are so busily creating.

Much better if they’ve never heard of the great golden drama of our national history and literature, so they don’t know what they’re missing and don’t care.

They would prefer the young to be brought up in a sort of moral car park, knowing nothing except what they are told by authority and the advertising industry. In this brave new world, sex is a spectacle and a sport, solemn oaths are worthless, and duty is a joke.

In this, they are much like the Soviet Communists, who deliberately made divorce as easy as crossing the road, and made absolutely sure that hardly any parents could afford to stay at home to raise their own children.

They have not yet gone quite as far as them – Soviet children were encouraged to worship, as a martyr, a semi-mythical figure called Pavlik Morozov, who was supposedly killed by his grandfather after informing on his own parents to the secret police. Russian friends of mine brought up in this vicious cult shuddered at the memory. But if you look carefully, you will see a ghostly shadow of this culture of denunciation growing up in our midst. And, as we forget all our long history of freedom and justice, it will become easier for such things to happen.

After all, we have long been used to the sight, on TV, of police officers smashing down front doors, or conducting dawn raids – and of being expected to approve of it.

An Englishman’s home is not his castle. And his life is not his own. That is what all this means, and will mean.

Amid the grunts and the creaking of bedsprings, and the pompous phrases of the judges, listen hard and you can hear them weaving Britain’s winding sheet.

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/

Can I be honest though? If all men decided never to get married and have children and science manages to get lesbianism to have children by two women I am not going to be angry, complain or object. Because as a man..I just realized how much of worthless value I am as a husband and a father and how society only value women and mothers..not even children...just women and mothers and I also realized how easily children devote to their mother and hate their father.

What I also realized that we only look at how bad and evil men are and never give credit to good things men did bring to the world and how we look at how women are perfect and never make mistake and never commit crime and we accept it and in our mind it makes total sense.

So I do prefer that the government have an all female society that are like robots obey and submit to their government king or queen because honestly..I have never heard from any women so far and maybe I am wrong and maybe because I live in the West I will not hear it...but from my experience and I could be wrong...from women I never hear them ones say good things about men or fathers as if all men since creation of Adam until end of time are all evil and they all did wrong and they are unfit human beings. And then I look at the children and always read Islamic forums and youtube comments how they hate their father and how they wish they never had a dad and the list goes on and they always link fathers = abusive, verbally, sexually abusive and oppressive.

I am just wondering here...can someone tell me or am I wrong ^o)^o)^o) but how many actually Muslim child who have grown to adulthood whose when their father have died actually mention his name and say "May Allah have mercy on him"? I am sure it is in counting fingers. How many Muslim child out there actually do prayer for their dad (who have died)?

So for me...having a children and wife is zero investment whatsoever and I have learned and enjoyed living a single life. The more I read in forums, the more I see in media and the more I hear from people..the more I see how really men have no value in society and the more I find men having children is stupid because you aint getting much investment from them at all.

So I am kinda of happy in USA fathers are disappearing and I do pray they are eliminated permanently. What we need though is increase the prison industry! (Are they not already having private prison companies now?) We need also to make there are more psychological job positions like mental hospitals and drug people with anti-depression and other mental issues that occurs when there are no dads. I think I heard that a child born without fathers they have over 70 different psychological, health, social, mental, intellectual issues that have never been seen before. That should be a good money industry for the pharmaceutical job industry. Women prefer to be independent who do not need a man and they can have it all, your new husband is the government. So the obligation and duty you had, had you had a husband now goes to your government. You need to obey and submit to your government. With husbands he would have looked at you as the most beautiful human being and would have want to make love with you had you been age 40+ as he grows old with you and he would have respected you for all what you have done for him and help him raise the kids...but now you throw him away...you need to work hard to look beautiful by how social world looks at how women should look like. In society a woman who reached age 30 is garbage and old ...we need to look for young women of age 18 if not even 16 as shine of beauty.

Women who work to compete in men's role need to sacrifice her biological need to be a mother. So by the time you have reached the corporate ladder you have thrown away the ability to be a mother and a wife. It is out the window.



African community in USA have over 70% children raised by single mothers with no fathers around. Their women are loud, vulgar, violent, their children are loud, vulgar, violent...they have high violence...over 80% of prisoners are males who are raised without fathers. So in away..I feel great satisfaction that society is falling apart for the lack of appreciation of what men bring in the table and how easily we are willing to distance ourselves from our fathers and bash him and give him zero value. ;D;D Revenge is best served cold!! ;D

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Can I be honest though? If all men decided never to get married and have children and science manages to get lesbianism to have children by two women I am not going to be angry, complain or object. Because as a man..I just realized how much of worthless value I am as a husband and a father and how society only value women and mothers..not even children...just women and mothers and I also realized how easily children devote to their mother and hate their father.

There are plenty of problems (social engineering etc) but this is not a new phenomena, it has happend in the past, but the attitude you display in this quote isnt going to help matters. Look to improve yourself, become the best that you can be rather than wallowing in self pity.

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Another update


Why vicar's daughter Theresa is so keen to kill off marriage

When will people grasp the difference between what the Tory party says it is, and what it actually is? It is not as if it tries hard to hide it. Here is a clue. It is not conservative at all.

It is a machine for obtaining power. It would cheerfully guillotine the Queen in Trafalgar Square, if it thought that by doing so it could keep or gain office. That is why it has spent the past 20 years becoming more Blairite than New Labour.

It helps to pay attention. Last week’s single most far-reaching act by the May government was to strike the final death-blow at the institution of marriage.

You would have thought a self-styled ‘Conservative’ party would like marriage. It is all about private life, the keeping of promises, and saving what we can of the Christian religion in a society which prefers to worship at shopping malls and football stadiums.

But Theresa May, who can seldom stop herself mentioning that she is a parson’s daughter, chose her party’s conference to declare that she now backs civil partnerships for heterosexuals. Unlike her grotesque attempts at dancing, this attracted little attention. That is a pity.

After a period of ‘consultation’ in which conservative voices will be sneeringly ignored, this change will happen. And Britain will have roughly the same attitude towards family life as the old Soviet Union did – a temporary contract in a world where everyone’s real parent is the almighty state.

Civil partnerships are state licenses for cohabitation. They are deliberately stripped of any remaining religious content. That is why radicals have been campaigning for them for so long. There is no room in them for the ‘sexist’ distinction between husband and wife. And they will be easier to get out of than a car-leasing agreement.

But they will give those who enter them the same legal rights, in terms of pensions, inheritance and next-of-kin privileges as those who make the much deeper commitment of lifelong marriage, still just about available at a church near you.

From now on, the only people who live together but will not be able to get these protections will be brothers and sisters, who continue to be driven from their former homes by inheritance tax, when one of them dies.

So why bother with the tougher option? Just as bad money drives out good, these feeble half-commitments will supplant marriage for most. The change, designed for the convenience of adults who don’t what to be too bound by deep pledge, will leave almost no barrier between children and the mighty forces of the government on one hand and greedy commerce on the other.

It is the fulfilment of a prophesy made by the contraceptive fanatic and ultra-liberal moral reformer Helen Brook who proclaimed in 1980 ‘From birth till death it is now the privilege of the parental State to take major decisions - objective, unemotional, the State weighs up what is best for the child.’

If the Tory Party believed in anything, it would never have accepted this revolutionary change, or many of the other ghastly, left-wing things it does to try to keep its ratings up. But it believes in nothing. And that is why it could so very easily lose the next election to a Labour Party which does believe in something.

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/

[xboxisdead]

Salaam



There are plenty of problems (social engineering etc) but this is not a new phenomena, it has happend in the past, but the attitude you display in this quote isnt going to help matters. Look to improve yourself, become the best that you can be rather than wallowing in self pity.

Oh! I am seeking to improve myself :D ;D Don't you worry. Not wallowing in self pity period ;D In fact, I am able to move on with the new changes and unlike other people will not kill myself or cannot handle the new social change ;D I can form a family myself without been married or getting marriage and I don't need to play the husband role to feel happy. Sure I would like to get married but I also play smart! I will see if there is a wife out there for me and if there isn't then it is not the end of the world. I will have a child on my own already (as I am searching for a wife) that I will raise with or without getting married and what better reward in the afterlife than taking care of an orphan child. :D Who knows..maybe he does not want me to get married after we formed a brotherly bond and so I wouldn't.

For me, the biggest priority revolve around the child I will adopt who I will raise well (Insha'Allah) and make him into a good merit adult and that to me is enough reward as it is, whether I am in an institutional marriage or not or whether in the future society can have children without men or not it is irrelevant to me. My focus is what I will bring into the table myself and how I do it in manners that pleases Allah alone and that is the ultimate success. :D

[سيف الله]

Salaam

How to destroy a faith, a nation, a people? You begin by destroying the family.

Embedded Tweet

[xboxisdead]

Salaam

How to destroy a faith, a nation, a people? You begin by destroying the family.

Embedded Tweet

I have a question to ask. If a person simply adopt and raise children on their own and they do not get married they are under the category of not a family? Is a family must be under the umbrella of marriage? if the answer is no...then what is that person under what category? If that person works hard to raise that child/children to become a good believing Muslim/Muslima and teach them in Islamic school and make sure they succeed in this life and the afterlife alone and teach them everything from Qura'an and Sunnah wouldn't that person still be under the umbrella of family and save the faith, nation and people?

If my mom got married and her husband died does that mean she is no longer family? So if she is under the umbrella of family why is it then a person not get married and raise children on their own be not under the category of family?

[*charisma*]

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Oh! I am seeking to improve myself :D ;D Don't you worry. Not wallowing in self pity period ;D In fact, I am able to move on with the new changes and unlike other people will not kill myself or cannot handle the new social change ;D I can form a family myself without been married or getting marriage and I don't need to play the husband role to feel happy. Sure I would like to get married but I also play smart! I will see if there is a wife out there for me and if there isn't then it is not the end of the world. I will have a child on my own already (as I am searching for a wife) that I will raise with or without getting married and what better reward in the afterlife than taking care of an orphan child. :D Who knows..maybe he does not want me to get married after we formed a brotherly bond and so I wouldn't.

For me, the biggest priority revolve around the child I will adopt who I will raise well (Insha'Allah) and make him into a good merit adult and that to me is enough reward as it is, whether I am in an institutional marriage or not or whether in the future society can have children without men or not it is irrelevant to me. My focus is what I will bring into the table myself and how I do it in manners that pleases Allah alone and that is the ultimate success. :D

You got it right at the first part but then you went the wrong direction, what your suggesting is not the Islamic way of doing things.

Come on bro your sounding like a male version of a feminist.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you junon;

Salaam

How to destroy a faith, a nation, a people? You begin by destroying the family.

Sadly that is very true. In the UK women became almost an outcast if they had a child out of wedlock until around the 1950's. Then the contraceptive pill came along, this increased the temptation to have sex out of marriage; because there was less chance of getting found out through an unwanted pregnancy.

Once one generation has tasted this freedom, it becomes more acceptable in the following generations. First faith is destroyed because all faiths recognise the importance of marriage, once people walk away from their faith, then marriage and society are destroyed.

In the spirit of praying for faith and Marriage.

Eric

[Mandy]

A very wise quote. And one that makes me worry about what my children will have to face when they grow older. Why some people seem to be set on their goals to push their values on other is beyond me. Specially when the damages to families are so clearly visible.

[xboxisdead]

Salaam



You got it right at the first part but then you went the wrong direction, what your suggesting is not the Islamic way of doing things.

Come on bro your sounding like a male version of a feminist.

But I love children :( I really do. I love playing the role of a guardian and I am not getting younger. If I wait way longer I will not even have the energy for that. There is no guarantee I will even find a good wife or last long in marriage or not have a woman who will become feminist in the future. If I adopt now one I can at least focus on having that and take my time to finding one but at least I would have a child in my life. How is that a feminist? :D Like a woman I have a biological clock ticking against me..but this is not what is between my legs nope...the biological clock is called energy and desire and I am feeling it is sipping away if I do not do action soon.

[Mandy]

I think what Junon meant by "male version of a feminist." (malenist???) is that you sometimes sound a bit extreme. Just like feminists sounds like they are power hungry woman who say that all males are rapists just because they are males.

You often say things that make it sound as if you believe all women are manipulative and evil and that we hate men. I am not saying some women cannot be like that. But most of us are far from that.

[xboxisdead]

I think what Junon meant by "male version of a feminist." (malenist???) is that you sometimes sound a bit extreme. Just like feminists sounds like they are power hungry woman who say that all males are rapists just because they are males.

You often say things that make it sound as if you believe all women are manipulative and evil and that we hate men. I am not saying some women cannot be like that. But most of us are far from that.

Sister, I am generalizing and that is what that is and it applies to only women who are with those traits. Any woman who don't fall in that category should not be offended or care because it is does not apply to them. But if you have noticed...I have not seen a rally or complain in the entire Earth when society bashes men or boys or generalize men or boys but the second something reverses happen then the above ^ comes in effect. Well...as long as there are generalization for one gender and attack in one gender...I have the right to generalize in the opposite direction and not necessarily attack but defend against such attack. I am not going to be shamed into expressing my feelings toward those evil women who you mentioned are causing a problem. If you have noticed..I am not targeting a Muslima who obeys Allah and his prophets and submit to Allah and read qura'an and perform the sunnah and who is good to her husband. If you have noticed I am targeting only the people who have earned the X on their forehead.

Sister why are you not upset when there are rallys with men wearing a shirt that says, "Men Are Trash"?

I am surprised with that. You see.....there are no support system for boys and men. There is none. It will take a man to talk about men's right and issues and I am been forced into that corner. So I will speak out. Whether I am labeled under a title, I will speak out and as long as there are hate and attack toward men and boys and we are been grouped under the evil men just because we are men...I will speak out.

[eesa the kiwi]

Sister, I am generalizing and that is what that is and it applies to only women who are with those traits. Any woman who don't fall in that category should not be offended or care because it is does not apply to them. But if you have noticed...I have not seen a rally or complain in the entire Earth when society bashes men or boys or generalize men or boys but the second something reverses happen then the above ^ comes in effect. Well...as long as there are generalization for one gender and attack in one gender...I have the right to generalize in the opposite direction and not necessarily attack but defend against such attack. I am not going to be shamed into expressing my feelings toward those evil women who you mentioned are causing a problem. If you have noticed..I am not targeting a Muslima who obeys Allah and his prophets and submit to Allah and read qura'an and perform the sunnah and who is good to her husband. If you have noticed I am targeting only the people who have earned the X on their forehead.

Sister why are you not upset when there are rallys with men wearing a shirt that says, "Men Are Trash"?

I am surprised with that. You see.....there are no support system for boys and men. There is none. It will take a man to talk about men's right and issues and I am been forced into that corner. So I will speak out. Whether I am labeled under a title, I will speak out and as long as there are hate and attack toward men and boys and we are been grouped under the evil men just because we are men...I will speak out.

You do realize you are basically the Male version of what you despise. All this ranting about women attacking men when you are just the flipside of the coin the Male version of feminism meninism or whatever its called

This isn't healthy bro let it go

[Mandy]

Sister why are you not upset when there are rallys with men wearing a shirt that says, "Men Are Trash"?

I would be very upset about such a rally. Just as I am very upset about rallies of women who protest because I am supposedly an oppressed woman since I wear hijab and try to be the best muslima I can. (yes I know there are such misguided people). But fortunately, even if those people are very vocal and visible, there are not many of them.

What I mean is that the actions you are describing are from a fringe group, but you make them sound like the norm. And your comments are just as extremist as the ones you denounce.


I do not want to offend you, but I am a mother and I have 3 sons. I work very hard to educate them and make sure they learn all about islam and grow up to be good strong muslim men. I love my sons and would do anything for them. So hearing you say that all women just want to destroy boys and keep them from being happy and grow in the men they should be, it simply hurts me very much.

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Greetings and peace be with you junon;



Sadly that is very true. In the UK women became almost an outcast if they had a child out of wedlock until around the 1950's. Then the contraceptive pill came along, this increased the temptation to have sex out of marriage; because there was less chance of getting found out through an unwanted pregnancy.

Once one generation has tasted this freedom, it becomes more acceptable in the following generations. First faith is destroyed because all faiths recognise the importance of marriage, once people walk away from their faith, then marriage and society are destroyed.

In the spirit of praying for faith and Marriage.

Eric

Yes, its one of the worst self inflicted wounds Ive ever seen a society do to itself.

Fake families are dyscivilizational

The family is the building block of civilization, particularly the Western form of civilization. That is why the increasing percentage of illegitimate births across the West is such a devastating indicator of civilizational decline.

An increasing number of births happen outside of marriage, signaling cultural and economic shifts that are here to stay, according to a new report from the United Nations.

Forty percent of all births in the U.S. now occur outside of wedlock, up from 10 percent in 1970, according to an annual report released on Wednesday by the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), the largest international provider of sexual and reproductive health services. That number is even higher in the European Union, where 60 percent of births occur outside of marriage.

The EU likely sees more births out of wedlock because many member countries have welfare systems that support gender-balanced child care, said Michael Hermann, UNFPA's senior adviser on economics and demography, in an interview. Public health care systems, paid paternal leave, early education programs and tax incentives give unwed parents support beyond what a partner can provide.

The data show such births in the U.S. and EU are predominantly to unmarried couples living together rather than to single mothers, the report says. The data suggest that societal and religious norms about marriage, childbearing and women in the workforce have changed, said Kelly Jones, the director for the Center on the Economics of Reproductive Health at the Institute for Women’s Policy Research.

Jones also noted that the rise in births outside of marriage is closely correlated to delays in childbearing. “Women are claiming their ground professionally,” she said. “Delaying motherhood is a rational decision when you consider the impact it can have on your career, and that’s contributing to this trend.”

The average age an American woman has her first child is now 27, up from 22 in 1970. As the marriage rate has fallen in the U.S.—and those who do tie the knot do so later in life—the number of adults in cohabiting relationships has steadily risen. This shift is most evident among those under age 35, who represent half of all cohabiting couples.

The traditional progression of Western life “has been reversed,” said John Santelli, a professor in population, family health and pediatrics at Columbia’s Mailman School of Public Health. “Cohabiting partners are having children before getting married. That’s a long-term trend across developing nations.”

This is a direct consequence of the de-Christianization of the West over the last 120 years. As I have repeatedly pointed out, you cannot remove ANY of the three pillars of Western civilization from your society and expect it to survive intact. It will not.

http://voxday.blogspot.com/

[xboxisdead]

I would be very upset about such a rally. Just as I am very upset about rallies of women who protest because I am supposedly an oppressed woman since I wear hijab and try to be the best muslima I can. (yes I know there are such misguided people). But fortunately, even if those people are very vocal and visible, there are not many of them.

What I mean is that the actions you are describing are from a fringe group, but you make them sound like the norm. And your comments are just as extremist as the ones you denounce.


I do not want to offend you, but I am a mother and I have 3 sons. I work very hard to educate them and make sure they learn all about islam and grow up to be good strong muslim men. I love my sons and would do anything for them. So hearing you say that all women just want to destroy boys and keep them from being happy and grow in the men they should be, it simply hurts me very much.

Apology sister if I offended you. I respect Muslima sisters as if they are my own sisters and if she is a mother as if she is my own mother. I do not want to even annoy a practicing Muslima and if she wears for the sake of Allah's pleasure only then my respect to her reach such high level that no feminist on Earth who demand that men respect women will ever achieve as a sister who strive to please Allah alone and not demand anything from the creation of Allah and she put her trust only in Allah. So please forgive me if I had offended you and by all means never did I mean all women and never did I implied all women! If it came that way, please I ask for your forgiveness sister. I was simply targeting my frustration on only women who have the X on their foreheads and who have earned jahanam by their own hands and who is causing fasaat around us.

But you have to give me a crumple of bread here with my frustration that there is no net for men when he falls but endless nets for when women fall. Wouldn't you be frustrated too?:heated:

[xboxisdead]

Salaam



Yes, its one of the worst self inflicted wounds Ive ever seen a society do to itself.

Fake families are dyscivilizational

The family is the building block of civilization, particularly the Western form of civilization. That is why the increasing percentage of illegitimate births across the West is such a devastating indicator of civilizational decline.



This is a direct consequence of the de-Christianization of the West over the last 120 years. As I have repeatedly pointed out, you cannot remove ANY of the three pillars of Western civilization from your society and expect it to survive intact. It will not.

http://voxday.blogspot.com/

Is this also going to effect Muslim countries too?

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you xboxisdead;

So please forgive me if I had offended you and by all means never did I mean all women and never did I implied all women! If it came that way, please I ask for your forgiveness sister.

I see a glimmer of hope for you xbox, deep down you know what is right.

But you have to give me a crumple of bread here with my frustration that there is no net for men when he falls but endless nets for when women fall. Wouldn't you be frustrated too?

Don't keep playing the victim, we have all been victims in this life. Let go of whatever happened in the past, then just draw a line under it, you can become that stronger and kinder man that you want to be.

In the spirit of praying for a peace that surpasses all understanding,

Eric

[xboxisdead]

Greetings and peace be with you xboxisdead;



I see a glimmer of hope for you xbox, deep down you know what is right.




Don't keep playing the victim, we have all been victims in this life. Let go of whatever happened in the past, then just draw a line under it, you can become that stronger and kinder man that you want to be.

In the spirit of praying for a peace that surpasses all understanding,

Eric

Oh i have always been like that..even when I was a little boy of age 10 and up. When I see a Muslimah with hijab I will not look at them directly, I will look away, avoid contacting them or talking to them or annoying or anything because they are non-mahram to me and because I obey Allah and his prophets (since I was that young and younger I never wore ones a short outside the home because I do not want to show my knees. I take wearing hijab for men seriously, because it is ordered by Allah, had I was been commanded to cover my entire body and hair and only show my face..I would have done that since I was 8 and never broke that cycle until I am dead. I would submit and obey and not complain)

However...non-Muslim women to me are men. In fact, i think I heard from a shiekh somewhere that a Muslim woman is not allowed to touch a non-Muslim woman and a Muslim woman is not allowed to remove her hijab in front of a non-Muslim woman and a Muslim woman should not be in the same place alone with a non-Muslim woman. This should tell someone something...no!? :D

[ardianto]

:sl:

Sense of fatherhood is an instinct which is reflection of love in the heart. You cannot train a boy to have sense of fatherhood if you do not try to raise sense of love in his heart. But if you can raise up the sense of love in his heart, even without you teach him about fatherhood he will learn by himself how to be a good father.

[xboxisdead]

:sl:

Sense of fatherhood is an instinct which is reflection of love in the heart. You cannot train a boy to have sense of fatherhood if you do not try to raise sense of love in his heart. But if you can raise up the sense of love in his heart, even without you teach him about fatherhood he will learn by himself how to be a good father.

If you have train a boy to love something or whip him into submission into loving something then you better stop, please. If fatherhood get instinct because the love of been fathers is ruined and stripped from boys heart then perhaps instead of taking courses and lessons and degrees to TRAIN BOYS TO fall in love with it again, that you may look to see the reason behind such instinction and fix the problem so that perhaps ones day somewhere such love may sprout again.

For example, a boy is excited that one day he will be a father..he love it and you tell him...well your role is insignificant and holds no value...well that is one hammer and nail on his heart you poked a hole into it. Then as he grows older the media promotes only motherhood and glorify it and there is no mention about fathers except is inferior to her in comparison...well that is another nail on his heart we poked on. Then as he grows older he have his mother that does all the parenting and father is nowhere to be seen, he is busy with his friends and busy working and making...so he grows up formulating that the role of fathers are really about just financial means and that is it. Then he thinks, well that can be replaced by anyone else so I have no significant important as such role then you poke another nail on his heart (remember each poking is irreversible). Then he receives messages that it is his obligation and duties and you have to be a man and and...so it is work now..not love and fun but work and hardships and and...so you poke another hole in his heart to further expand that hole (like the destruction of the ozone layer). Such love diminishes as he grows older. He sees in family court fathers are less than animals in rights and that the mother can take and cause mental torture between father and child and that the mother have all the ability to cut ties between father and child and she uses the child as a weapon..he grows to understand that such scenario could happen to himself and he finds that in court and society he have to man up and fight and fight and if he does not fight he is a loser and he is not a good dad and and...so that puts even further hole in the heart for loving such role. He formulates a conclusion that fatherhood stink and stupid and in some cases he hates it. He focus on things he have control over and believe his rights are over and that is not fatherhood.....so if we really care about fatherhood as we say we do...it is now we change our thinking if we ...meh...don't give a damn....


..I mean why are we even having this discussion from the first place @_O?

[ardianto]

...meh...don't give a damn....

I didn't mean to give you a ....... I just wanted to share what I know from my experience as father for 20 years, and I hope other parents can learn how to make their boys have sense of fatherhood in the future.

I feel corcerned about what I have seen. There are men who left their their children, left the women who gave birth those inocent children. Men like this do exist, and few of them were my friends. I have seen how those women and children life are. Some of them face hard life in poverty because there is no financial support from the father who live with another woman and neglect them. The rest look luckier because the women have income. But I wonder what those children feel when they see other children look happy with their fathers.

That's happened because those men have no sense of fatherhood. That's why I tried to remind about the importance of sense of fatherhood.

:)

[xboxisdead]

I didn't mean to give you a ....... I just wanted to share what I know from my experience as father for 20 years, and I hope other parents can learn how to make their boys have sense of fatherhood in the future.

I feel corcerned about what I have seen. There are men who left their their children, left the women who gave birth those inocent children. Men like this do exist, and few of them were my friends. I have seen how those women and children life are. Some of them face hard life in poverty because there is no financial support from the father who live with another woman and neglect them. The rest look luckier because the women have income. But I wonder what those children feel when they see other children look happy with their fathers.

That's happened because those men have no sense of fatherhood. That's why I tried to remind about the importance of sense of fatherhood.

:)

You have long way for that when we have worked long way and hard and imprinted in the gene of boys that fatherhood is a trashcan role to be thrown away. Don't forget...there are wars on fatherhood and the war is about to be a winner. Don't forget when a boy have any parenting feeling he says I am a mommy, he never says I am a daddy because he find mommy is more stronger than daddy and find mommy is natural..daddy is abnormal. If you are going to do what you say we should do then know it is a lifetime job that you have to instill to boys the importance of fatherhood and you will get benefits in this full time job, and you will need to work until retirement and clienteles are still coming to you like flocks of chickens. So you need new generations of employees to work on such company. You will never have shortage of boys with that issue. Look at me for example, I have volunteered in a musallah (masjid) to teach boys Quraan and memorization and by the way...the media that says boys are stupid and they are immature are the biggest liars I have ever seen. I have never seen such UNBELIEVABLY sharp..SMART...MATURE...arrticulate boys as I have seen in that masjid. Wooof. I felt like I was talking with little men...not boys. They had a mentor....a male mentor and that matured them and turned them into men...FAST. Well...this young men who is no more than 7 years old if not less...talked to me and said to me, "My father hates, he wants nothing to do with me. He was to my mother and he hit me and my mother and so my mother had to run away and he is with another woman now and he loves her children and her and not me." I tried to tell him..that he loves you and cares for you but he was not convinced and he argued, "Noooo..hates me.." and so on. So...a 7 year old if not less than that...said those words.....what do you think he will grow up to be? How do you think he will take his role to be? What you think his opinion toward men will be like? No one cares...let us be honest that is a boy who is crying for help..but he is a boy so no one cares. So why should he care? That will be his thoughts anyways and because that will be his thoughts as a child why should he care...he will formulate that is an ingredients when grows older and will reflect on his behavior as he reach adulthood and he WILL REPEAT the cycle of his father.....in one way or another..he will be another person who will leave his children and go somewhere...JUST...LIKE...HIS....DAD.

Well - claps you on the back - enjoy your new found job ;D ;D ;D

[azc]

Oh i have always been like that..even when I was a little boy of age 10 and up. When I see a Muslimah with hijab I will not look at them directly, I will look away, avoid contacting them or talking to them or annoying or anything because they are non-mahram to me and because I obey Allah and his prophets (since I was that young and younger I never wore ones a short outside the home because I do not want to show my knees. I take wearing hijab for men seriously, because it is ordered by Allah, had I was been commanded to cover my entire body and hair and only show my face..I would have done that since I was 8 and never broke that cycle until I am dead. I would submit and obey and not complain) However...non-Muslim women to me are men. In fact, i think I heard from a shiekh somewhere that a Muslim woman is not allowed to touch a non-Muslim woman and a Muslim woman is not allowed to remove her hijab in front of a non-Muslim woman and a Muslim woman should not be in the same place alone with a non-Muslim woman. This should tell someone something...no!? :D

What kind of hijab you would wear, bro

[xboxisdead]

What kind of hijab you would wear, bro

Bare in mind my father died when I was a baby and I had no real male influence at all. I was raised by mother and grandmother so what I understood is that a man should not show his knees. With that I went and never wore shorts ever in my life and wore pants and robes at home all my life since I was a boy. See my pictures as a boy and you will find as I grew a certain age from that age and up all pants, pants, pants, pants, pants..long pants..pants....up to this age I am in right now..pants. Pant, pant, pant (sings). Yup...pants. I also cute my hair, I never grow it long (not that it is wrong) and all my shirts are either long sleeve shirts or short sleeve shirts but not one of them showing my chest or stomach. I love covering myself. I did not realize it..but when I was a little boy...like at 7 or such...I ACTUALLY cry with fountain of tears if I do not have an underwear on. I MUST wear that. I LOVE COVERING MY BODY. LOVE IT. Some men don't wear underwears and I am like are you crazy...but me..nope...even was a kid I love covering my body...LOVED IT!!!! I find.....setra covering my body.....

[سيف الله]

Is this also going to effect Muslim countries too?

If we don't maintain our culture and faith then yes.

This is what freedom without responsibility brings.

Embedded Tweet

Embedded Tweet

[xboxisdead]

If we don't maintain our culture and faith then yes.

This is what freedom without responsibility brings.

Embedded Tweet

Embedded Tweet

:o:o:o:o:o:o :heated::heated::heated::heated: WOW!


Al-hamdolillah I am single so far ;D Well, well....well =claps hands together= is it ok if I take a break from all of this? I need to rest my mind and not get heated and emotional anymore...I will simply be quiet and read what people post and learn and see other people's point of view. I am going to try to mimic what my dad did (what mom told me my dad did) he spoke sooooooooo little words and all he did is listen from people. He just listened and listened and listened and learned and learned and even learned from other people's mistake before he does it himself so he always avoid doing mistakes by simply learning from people's mistakes and observing the consequences of that action or what is said.

[ardianto]

If we don't maintain our culture and faith then yes.

Embedded Tweet

Indonesian people who work abroad and then having affair at there are not men, but women!.

Many of indonesia female migrant workers are married women. And they leave their family at homeland. Yes, it can lead to divorce. Different than male migrant workers who mostly are young unmarried men. And after they finished their contract they return to Indonesia, get married and choose to live in homeland with their families.

[سيف الله]

Salaam

This is related.

Blurb

This lecture attempts to assess the changing premise of feminism throughout the years. It also sheds light on the historical racism associated the ideology. The lecture compares feminist models of 'women's rights' and Islamic ones.

[azc]

Bare in mind my father died when I was a baby and I had no real male influence at all. I was raised by mother and grandmother so what I understood is that a man should not show his knees. With that I went and never wore shorts ever in my life and wore pants and robes at home all my life since I was a boy. See my pictures as a boy and you will find as I grew a certain age from that age and up all pants, pants, pants, pants, pants..long pants..pants....up to this age I am in right now..pants. Pant, pant, pant (sings). Yup...pants. I also cute my hair, I never grow it long (not that it is wrong) and all my shirts are either long sleeve shirts or short sleeve shirts but not one of them showing my chest or stomach. I love covering myself. I did not realize it..but when I was a little boy...like at 7 or such...I ACTUALLY cry with fountain of tears if I do not have an underwear on. I MUST wear that. I LOVE COVERING MY BODY. LOVE IT. Some men don't wear underwears and I am like are you crazy...but me..nope...even was a kid I love covering my body...LOVED IT!!!! I find.....setra covering my body.....

I appreciate your childhood habit of covering your 'Satar' which is close to sunnah of prophet s.a.w.

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Blurb

The Motion: This House Believes the State Should Not Recognise Marriage.

Peter Hitchens closes the case for the opposition, as the eighth speaker of eight in the debate.

The motion was defeated.




Overworld

Peter Hitchens says: "it would be nice if we could have continued as a society rather than a collection of people living in the same place"

Beautiful line, and so sad.

[xboxisdead]

Salaam

Blurb

The Motion: This House Believes the State Should Not Recognise Marriage.

Peter Hitchens closes the case for the opposition, as the eighth speaker of eight in the debate.

The motion was defeated.




Overworld

Peter Hitchens says: "it would be nice if we could have continued as a society rather than a collection of people living in the same place"

Beautiful line, and so sad.

Sad but that is life we just have to move on mate. We all know no one cares for husbands, fathers and men's right so as long as men are treated like animals and worse than animals in marriage and parental rights...the marriage is destroyed. We can focus only women in everything about her..about her rights, how she is the weaker sex so we we should empower her...the spot light is only on her and just her and everything is about her...we could do that..and we are doing that...and we feel it make sense to do that and we can marginalize men and put him in the shadow...we could do that also and we are doing that and it make sense to us to do that and thus ...we focus on women issue alone and marriage is about women alone...we could do that..and we are doing that...and it makes total sense for us to to do that...but please don't expect smile on men's faces when it comes to marriage and men AND ANY SMART MEN should delay marriage as much as possible if not simply not get married. Men should wait until mahdi comes and until justice is returned back to him and fairness is returned back to him and Allah subhanahu Wa Talaa send mehdi to us..to teach us we are doing wrong and there is something called husband, father and men right and these are his rights and enforce these rights as serious as we are enforcing women's right and mothers right...THEN I say men should get married. But until then...it is only getting worse. If people don't care about men's right and father's right and husband right...then you don't care about marriage and all these promoting marriage is a hypocrisy from your end. A marriage is by two parties..a man and a woman and thus both have THEIR RIGHTS and should be enforced and respected and not have a man cower down by a domineering wife who wiggles her finger at him...shouts at him and treat him like a child and he should cower at some corner of a room or live in a garage as he have to obey and submit to every of her whims. By the way...as long as we have this stigma where women never are wrong and men are never right..please do not tell men to get married because you are just enforcing oppression and Allah hates oppression.

I say the smartest move for a man is to delay marriage as much as possible and avoid having children until fathers have value back into society and they have rights back and any woman who commit the crime of parental alienation should automatically lose 100% custodial right and be given to the father and if she attempts to kidnap or harm the child she will be put in prison at the same sentence as a man would. YOU DO THAT..then we are talking!

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Look Xbox bro you've got to calm down and stop being so binary in your thinking and mindlessly blaming women, it goes both ways. The breakdown of the family system in the UK ( apply to others) as explained has been socially engineered by rich powerful elites as explained throughout this thread.

Now I agree just like men can behave badly in marriage women can as well ( I can attest having experienced it), you might be amazed to know many women themselves speak out against this bad behaviour

Blurb

Two great talks by Erin Pizzey and Vincent McGovern at the Families Need Fathers: Domestic Violence Workshop, hosted on 27th October 2018.



Blurb

Esther Vilar's classic polemic about the relationship between the sexes caused a sensation on its first publication. In her introduction to this revised edition, Vilar maintains that very little has changed. A man is a human being who works, while a woman chooses to let a man provide for her and her children in return for carefully dispensed praise and sex.

Vilar's perceptive, thought-provoking and often very funny look at the battle between the sexes has earned her severe criticism and even death threats. But Vilar's intention is not misogynous: she maintains that only if women and men look at their place in society with honesty, will there be any hope for change.

I know this is harsh Xbox bro the only advice I can give you is this.



Bro I understand the pain your going through but the only solution it to try and remain positive and return to Islamic ways of thinking on this subject. Were here to help you.

[xboxisdead]

Salaam

Look Xbox bro you've got to calm down and stop being so binary in your thinking and mindlessly blaming women, it goes both ways. The breakdown of the family system in the UK ( apply to others) as explained has been socially engineered by rich powerful elites as explained throughout this thread.

Now I agree just like men can behave badly in marriage women can as well ( I can attest having experienced it), you might be amazed to know many women themselves speak out against this bad behaviour

Blurb

Two great talks by Erin Pizzey and Vincent McGovern at the Families Need Fathers: Domestic Violence Workshop, hosted on 27th October 2018.



Blurb

Esther Vilar's classic polemic about the relationship between the sexes caused a sensation on its first publication. In her introduction to this revised edition, Vilar maintains that very little has changed. A man is a human being who works, while a woman chooses to let a man provide for her and her children in return for carefully dispensed praise and sex.

Vilar's perceptive, thought-provoking and often very funny look at the battle between the sexes has earned her severe criticism and even death threats. But Vilar's intention is not misogynous: she maintains that only if women and men look at their place in society with honesty, will there be any hope for change.

I know this is harsh Xbox bro the only advice I can give you is this.



Bro I understand the pain your going through but the only solution it to try and remain positive and return to Islamic ways of thinking on this subject. Were here to help you.

Thank you brother. I watched the entire horror in the video but nothing positive came from the end of it except they are telling me it is getting worse. Brother if Prophet peace be upon him was with us now and he is living in a country with us with such laws like this, would he still say to the men get married even if he knows that the women can destroy him. Even if he warned the women about such act, do you honestly believe lots of them would care or listen? I don't believe any prophet would tell his people to do something that will harm them or destroy them in anyway shape or form.

Before you answer that question about women would care or listen...I would stop you here and then and say majority of them would not care or listen or even respect the prophet face to face. Why? Because lots of them are doing it now, by not taking his warnings or following his sunnah correctly and I can say the same goes to us men too. The mere fact we say, "Oh it is just a sunnah" it is the same as going in front of the prophet right now face to face and saying to him, "Buzz off buster! You are just a man! I am going to do the bare minimum but I am not going to go out of my way and follow all your way of life or style or interaction with the world."

Isn't it the same as a Muslim person simply praying fast because prayer is a burden to him or herself and just want to get it out of the way as some obligatory checklist?

Tell me if the majority of us aren't doing that already. So that been said, before you prompt marriage to anyone...we need to prompt getting back truly and seriously to the proper path of following the Qura'an and sunnah perfectly well. IN additional to that, there need to be classes about gender roles and classes for men and classes for women (Please! Not just women studies :facepalm::facepalm:). Then...we need to have lectures in Jummah that not just talk about mother's right please, but talks about father's right and husband and wives rights...please. IN additional to that...as much as we put so much emphasis on mothers value, right and paradise under her feet...we need to also talk about husband's statue and put importance to that as we do to importances of mother's statues.

Have a society build on that foundation ...... please. Also have a society that wage war on parental alienation and protect the weakest of the two...and that is fathers. Fathers are the weaker parents and there should be more organization and protection against fathers rights or we are just spinning our wheel and going "Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeee eeeeeee! I am getting dizzy!" and that my friend is not something I enjoy doing...I hate dizziness. I don't know about you..but I do not like it when the world spins. Maybe others get high when the world is spinning..but not me.

Now for me personally, I never did have a father. SO I don't know nothing about masculinity or know how to be a man and how to have a relationship between a man and a woman. So I am incapable to be a marriage material, a husband and a father.

What we should do if boys are in this boat is simply show them how the prophet peace be upon him interacted in all his worldly affair, how he dealt with the womenfolk, how he dealt as a parent and a husband and how interacted with the society around him. If a boy doesn't have a father and he is at the hand of the mother, it is her responsibility to make sure that he get all masculine attribute and how to become a man by following the footstep of the prophet peace be upon him....and in additional he need to have a physical interaction with a male role model who mimic the way of the prophet. Because that responsibility falls over the mother (when there is no man around) and she will be accounted in the day of judgement of how she raised her son.

But thanks brother for offering to help me :D:D

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Xbox bro heres an example of a positive critique.

Incentives matter.

The U.S. and our allies won the Cold War in part because we had a far superior economic system. The Soviets relied on a quota system enforced by threats of imprisonment. The U.S. and its allies on the other hand relied on an incentive based system. The quota based system works to a degree, but it creates a disincentive for increased productivity. Under a quota based system if you work harder or smarter and produce more, you will find that your quota is quickly raised. No good deed goes unpunished, as your own hard work will always be used against you.

Ironically even as the U.S. was winning the Cold War it was in the process of moving to a quota based system itself. This change happened not on the factory floor, but in the family. In the past our families were marriage based. Men married and lived with their families, and this created an incentive for men to work hard first to signal provider status (to attract a wife) and then to provide for their own families. That men respond to the marriage based system by working harder and smarter is well known, even while economists miss the point. See for example the endless supply of academic papers scratching their heads to figure out why marriage is associated with greater earnings for men but not for women. What is the cause of this mysterious male marriage premium?

Yet while academics are baffled, our family court judges know the answer. They know from experience that when you take away a man’s family you take away much of his incentive to work hard to support that family. When you tell him it isn’t his family anymore, he feels less of a sense of responsibility. Likewise, when you kick a man out of his home, he feels less incentive to work hard to keep paying the mortgage or rent. This is why judges are careful when stripping a man’s family away to assign the man an earnings quota in the form of imputed income. Otherwise, the man is likely to respond to having his home and family ripped away by working like a single man without a mortgage. Like the old Soviet system, the man’s quota is established by his own record of production. If he produces more, his quota will be increased.

I mention this in preface to a post by Dr. Helen titled ‘About 500,000 Young Men Are Missing, and It Isn’t Clear Why ‘. The title is a quote from a Bloomberg article that wonders why young millennial men aren’t working harder:

Though employment rates have been climbing back from the abyss, young men never caught up again. Millennial males remain less likely to hold down a job than the generation before them, even as women their age work at higher rates.

The Bloomberg article uses a familiar trick to personify the trend they are asserting. They introduce Nathan Butcher, who is 25 and not working. Nathan has job opportunities, but isn’t motivated to either start at the bottom and work his way up or to improve his career prospects through education/training, although he talks about wanting to do the latter.

Perhaps not coincidentally, Nathan isn’t a product of our old (marriage based) family model that gave young men an incentive to work hard. As the article explains, he is a product of the new family model, headed by single mothers:

His choosiness could be a generational trait, he allows. His mother worked to support her three kids, whether she liked her job or not.

The implication is that the golden age of responsible single motherhood has passed us by:

“That was the template for that generation: you were either working and unhappy, or you were a mooch,” he said. “People feel that they have choice nowadays, and they do.”

It is more likely that such a golden age never existed. But either way, it is clear that Nathan isn’t motivated to do what it takes to signal provider status and thereby attract a wife:

He’s being selective as he searches for new work because he doesn’t want to grind out unhappy hours for unsatisfying compensation.

“I’m very quick to get frustrated when people refuse to pay me what I’m worth,” he said.

But should we be surprised that Nathan isn’t motivated? We’ve removed the incentives and prestige that once motivated men to work hard to support their families as husbands and fathers. We’ve spent decades teaching men that husbands and fathers are despicable at worst, and at best jokes. All of our entertainment, even product commercials, continuously hammers this message. It isn’t just secular culture either. Christian movies are even worse than secular entertainment in this regard, and Father’s Day is now a day to disparage married fathers in churches across the land. It isn’t just our culture that sends this message. We send the same message with even greater potency with our family courts.

The message is: Men who marry and have children are despicable and deserve the harshest punishments we can mete out.

Now we are scratching our heads asking “Hey, why aren’t these young men knocking themselves out preparing to become husbands and fathers? What is wrong with these losers?” I don’t think Nathan himself knows what is really going on. This new system that dishonors the honorable and discourages men from working hard is the only system he knows. It will also be the only system his children will know. For at the end of the Bloomberg article we learn that 25 year old unemployed Nathan is already a father twice over under our new family model:

He wants to earn enough to provide security for his son and daughter, who live with their mother.

Predictably older conservatives will respond to the failure of our new family model by patting themselves on the back for working harder than young men like Nathan. We are after all the generation that won the Cold War.

https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2018/1...ives-matter-2/

[xboxisdead]

Salaam

Xbox bro heres an example of a positive critique.

Incentives matter.

The U.S. and our allies won the Cold War in part because we had a far superior economic system. The Soviets relied on a quota system enforced by threats of imprisonment. The U.S. and its allies on the other hand relied on an incentive based system. The quota based system works to a degree, but it creates a disincentive for increased productivity. Under a quota based system if you work harder or smarter and produce more, you will find that your quota is quickly raised. No good deed goes unpunished, as your own hard work will always be used against you.

Ironically even as the U.S. was winning the Cold War it was in the process of moving to a quota based system itself. This change happened not on the factory floor, but in the family. In the past our families were marriage based. Men married and lived with their families, and this created an incentive for men to work hard first to signal provider status (to attract a wife) and then to provide for their own families. That men respond to the marriage based system by working harder and smarter is well known, even while economists miss the point. See for example the endless supply of academic papers scratching their heads to figure out why marriage is associated with greater earnings for men but not for women. What is the cause of this mysterious male marriage premium?

Yet while academics are baffled, our family court judges know the answer. They know from experience that when you take away a man’s family you take away much of his incentive to work hard to support that family. When you tell him it isn’t his family anymore, he feels less of a sense of responsibility. Likewise, when you kick a man out of his home, he feels less incentive to work hard to keep paying the mortgage or rent. This is why judges are careful when stripping a man’s family away to assign the man an earnings quota in the form of imputed income. Otherwise, the man is likely to respond to having his home and family ripped away by working like a single man without a mortgage. Like the old Soviet system, the man’s quota is established by his own record of production. If he produces more, his quota will be increased.

I mention this in preface to a post by Dr. Helen titled ‘About 500,000 Young Men Are Missing, and It Isn’t Clear Why ‘. The title is a quote from a Bloomberg article that wonders why young millennial men aren’t working harder:

Though employment rates have been climbing back from the abyss, young men never caught up again. Millennial males remain less likely to hold down a job than the generation before them, even as women their age work at higher rates.

The Bloomberg article uses a familiar trick to personify the trend they are asserting. They introduce Nathan Butcher, who is 25 and not working. Nathan has job opportunities, but isn’t motivated to either start at the bottom and work his way up or to improve his career prospects through education/training, although he talks about wanting to do the latter.

Perhaps not coincidentally, Nathan isn’t a product of our old (marriage based) family model that gave young men an incentive to work hard. As the article explains, he is a product of the new family model, headed by single mothers:

His choosiness could be a generational trait, he allows. His mother worked to support her three kids, whether she liked her job or not.

The implication is that the golden age of responsible single motherhood has passed us by:

“That was the template for that generation: you were either working and unhappy, or you were a mooch,” he said. “People feel that they have choice nowadays, and they do.”

It is more likely that such a golden age never existed. But either way, it is clear that Nathan isn’t motivated to do what it takes to signal provider status and thereby attract a wife:

He’s being selective as he searches for new work because he doesn’t want to grind out unhappy hours for unsatisfying compensation.

“I’m very quick to get frustrated when people refuse to pay me what I’m worth,” he said.

But should we be surprised that Nathan isn’t motivated? We’ve removed the incentives and prestige that once motivated men to work hard to support their families as husbands and fathers. We’ve spent decades teaching men that husbands and fathers are despicable at worst, and at best jokes. All of our entertainment, even product commercials, continuously hammers this message. It isn’t just secular culture either. Christian movies are even worse than secular entertainment in this regard, and Father’s Day is now a day to disparage married fathers in churches across the land. It isn’t just our culture that sends this message. We send the same message with even greater potency with our family courts.

The message is: Men who marry and have children are despicable and deserve the harshest punishments we can mete out.

Now we are scratching our heads asking “Hey, why aren’t these young men knocking themselves out preparing to become husbands and fathers? What is wrong with these losers?” I don’t think Nathan himself knows what is really going on. This new system that dishonors the honorable and discourages men from working hard is the only system he knows. It will also be the only system his children will know. For at the end of the Bloomberg article we learn that 25 year old unemployed Nathan is already a father twice over under our new family model:

He wants to earn enough to provide security for his son and daughter, who live with their mother.

Predictably older conservatives will respond to the failure of our new family model by patting themselves on the back for working harder than young men like Nathan. We are after all the generation that won the Cold War.

https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2018/1...ives-matter-2/

What are you talking about? In this process there is an incentive for men too. The incentive is not to get married and have children with women in confinement of marriage. This an incentive. I am curious however...let us say all men on Earth decided you know what...heck with marriage and having children and women scream, "I am a strong independent woman! I don't need a man! I am a single mother! Hear me roar...ROOOAAR!" she roars loudly like the most powerful lion and she rips her shirt and pounds her chest like a barbaric gorilla as she jumps from tree to tree branch. I am curious this experiment when reached to that point....how healthy of a society are we? Not very much. But to me. I will be so happy, I will be laughing, because eventually...men got their revenge for been mistreated all this time. Eventually...the bullet will return back to the women and honestly the children.....and when the time comes in the of judgement....THAT IS A HUGE INCENTIVE to further this on...because men will not be blamed...only women will be blamed. Because she had all the power and she exploited the power to hurt their men and their children for vindictive reasons. So to me...that is so satisfying.....for every woman out there who do false rape, allegation and cut ties between the children and their father...I sigh a happy relief of happiness..and you are a Muslim doing this....I sigh a happy of relief. Because you just gave your paradise to this man willingly and you traded your paradise for his hellfire. For any woman out there who does. I thank you. I thank you. I thank you. But to be fair.....and not coming out ugly....for any man who abuse his power over his wife...who verbally abuse her, physically abuse her or cut ties between her and her children or exploit the law to harm her and ruin her reputation.....I also thank you for doing that...because in the day of judgement you traded your paradise for her hellfire. SO I thank you brother for hurting yourself and jumping to the pit of hellfire. Both sexes who act evil...I only point the blame on you...and you earned what you planted and I am not exceptional...it goes to me too.

I told my mother...I told her...if Allah punishes me in the grave and afterlife....I DESERVE EVERY SINGLE PAIN I GOT. Every one of them. If Allah put me in hellfire ...I earned and deserve every single cracking fire that burn my skin and scorch me to blackness.

Nice article Junon.....but understand...man is an evolutionary being...eventually this trait will be inherited from man to son and he will morphed and change to suit his environment. He will consider marriage and having children with a woman an abnormal act and not natural and he will believe that fatherhood indeed is a repulsive act that and disgusting and he will live like the way of animals. He will screw as many woman as he can get and jump from tree to tree, scratching himself and living like the wild. He will work for himself and he WILL BE VERY HAPPY this way....in fact at that time...when you ask him to raise children he will feel the same feeling if his children died on his arm. He will hate it. Refuse and will never conceive with a woman. Maybe then...sperm bank or IVF will be mandatory for woman. If women wish to seek to take all men's role to show man that he is unnecessary we will move into a single sex society of female ruling the world. If this is the world you wish to head in that direction do it. But remember...just because boys disappears from face of the Earth does not mean, violence will go with him. There have been stories of daughters stabbing their own mother, removing their own mother's eyes and been abusive to their parents. Don't think girls are angels with no sins on her. Believe that and you are a disbeliever. Girls are equally violent as boys and can be manipulative and evil as any man can be. Don't you worry about that.