× Register Login What's New! Contact us
So Much for 'Father's Day' - in a Country Where Fatherhood is Dying Out
Page 3 of 5 First 1 2 3 4 5 Last
Results 41 to 60 of 91
  1. #1
    Array Junon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    UK
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    2,539
    Threads
    293
    Reputation
    5659
    Rep Power
    61

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


    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/

  2. #41
    Junon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    UK
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    2,539
    Threads
    293
    Reputation
    5659
    Rep Power
    61
    Likes (Given)
    325
    Likes (Received)
    427

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

    Report bad ads?

    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/
    1 | Likes Mustafa16 liked this post

  3. Report bad ads?
  4. #42
    Junon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    UK
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    2,539
    Threads
    293
    Reputation
    5659
    Rep Power
    61
    Likes (Given)
    325
    Likes (Received)
    427

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

    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/

  5. #43
    Junon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    UK
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    2,539
    Threads
    293
    Reputation
    5659
    Rep Power
    61
    Likes (Given)
    325
    Likes (Received)
    427

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

    Salaam

    Another update.

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


  6. #44
    Junon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    UK
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    2,539
    Threads
    293
    Reputation
    5659
    Rep Power
    61
    Likes (Given)
    325
    Likes (Received)
    427

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

    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

  7. Report bad ads?
  8. #45
    Junon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    UK
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    2,539
    Threads
    293
    Reputation
    5659
    Rep Power
    61
    Likes (Given)
    325
    Likes (Received)
    427

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

    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/

  9. #46
    Karl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Antipodes
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    1,288
    Threads
    13
    Reputation
    1559
    Rep Power
    63
    Likes (Given)
    68
    Likes (Received)
    200

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

    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.

  10. #47
    Junon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    UK
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    2,539
    Threads
    293
    Reputation
    5659
    Rep Power
    61
    Likes (Given)
    325
    Likes (Received)
    427

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

    Salaam

    Another update on the breakdown of the family.

    Class War Against the Family


  11. #48
    Junon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    UK
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    2,539
    Threads
    293
    Reputation
    5659
    Rep Power
    61
    Likes (Given)
    325
    Likes (Received)
    427

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

    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/

  12. #49
    xboxisdead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    607
    Threads
    64
    Reputation
    818
    Rep Power
    0
    Likes (Given)
    2
    Likes (Received)
    164

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

    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 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 ...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.
    Last edited by xboxisdead; 02-15-2018 at 04:09 AM.

  13. Report bad ads?
  14. #50
    azc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    6,419
    Threads
    370
    Reputation
    21519
    Rep Power
    34
    Likes (Given)
    839
    Likes (Received)
    2208

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

    Quote Originally Posted by xboxisdead View Post
    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 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 ...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
    1 | Likes Eric H liked this post
    So Much for 'Father's Day' - in a Country Where Fatherhood is Dying Out

    Allah (swt) knows best

  15. #51
    xboxisdead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    607
    Threads
    64
    Reputation
    818
    Rep Power
    0
    Likes (Given)
    2
    Likes (Received)
    164

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

    Quote Originally Posted by azc View Post
    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.

  16. #52
    azc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    6,419
    Threads
    370
    Reputation
    21519
    Rep Power
    34
    Likes (Given)
    839
    Likes (Received)
    2208

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

    Quote Originally Posted by xboxisdead View Post
    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.
    weird thinking..................... !
    1 | Likes Junon liked this post
    So Much for 'Father's Day' - in a Country Where Fatherhood is Dying Out

    Allah (swt) knows best

  17. #53
    xboxisdead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    607
    Threads
    64
    Reputation
    818
    Rep Power
    0
    Likes (Given)
    2
    Likes (Received)
    164

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Karl View Post
    "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.

  18. #54
    Junon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    UK
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    2,539
    Threads
    293
    Reputation
    5659
    Rep Power
    61
    Likes (Given)
    325
    Likes (Received)
    427

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

    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/

  19. Report bad ads?
  20. #55
    xboxisdead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    607
    Threads
    64
    Reputation
    818
    Rep Power
    0
    Likes (Given)
    2
    Likes (Received)
    164

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Junon View Post
    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 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. Revenge is best served cold!!

  21. #56
    Junon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    UK
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    2,539
    Threads
    293
    Reputation
    5659
    Rep Power
    61
    Likes (Given)
    325
    Likes (Received)
    427

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

    Salaam

    Quote Originally Posted by xboxisdead View Post
    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.

  22. #57
    Junon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    UK
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    2,539
    Threads
    293
    Reputation
    5659
    Rep Power
    61
    Likes (Given)
    325
    Likes (Received)
    427

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

    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/

  23. #58
    xboxisdead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    607
    Threads
    64
    Reputation
    818
    Rep Power
    0
    Likes (Given)
    2
    Likes (Received)
    164

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Junon View Post
    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 Don't you worry. Not wallowing in self pity period 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 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. 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.
    1 | Likes Junon liked this post

  24. #59
    Junon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    UK
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    2,539
    Threads
    293
    Reputation
    5659
    Rep Power
    61
    Likes (Given)
    325
    Likes (Received)
    427

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

    Salaam

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

    1 | Likes Eric H liked this post

  25. Report bad ads?
  26. #60
    xboxisdead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    607
    Threads
    64
    Reputation
    818
    Rep Power
    0
    Likes (Given)
    2
    Likes (Received)
    164

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Junon View Post
    Salaam

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

    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?

  27. Hide
Page 3 of 5 First 1 2 3 4 5 Last
Hey there! So Much for 'Father's Day' - in a Country Where Fatherhood is Dying Out Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. So Much for 'Father's Day' - in a Country Where Fatherhood is Dying Out
Sign Up

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
create