From the Daily Telegraph, by Christina Odone, Feb. 3, 2012:
Victory for divorced dads is a victory for children
Fathers matter, and the law now recognises this. The government is rewriting the law so that children will have a legal right to see their father, even when their parents have split up. Fathers’ rights campaigners will hail this as a victory for fathers – but in fact, it’s a victory for children.
No, it is a victory of fathers, it has been achieved by the publicity and political work of fathers who have been treated as second class parents by the law. It is to the benefit of children as well as of fathers, and the first was and is the primary purpose of the fight. It is not a victory of children but for the sake of the children. The woman author does not like to put the merit to whom it belongs, if it’s men, if it’s fathers, it seems. So again, it is a victory of fathers for children and for fathers.
The vicious supremacist attitude of the author is expressed in the second sentence already: “even when their parents have split up”. What? Even? The presumption is thus, that it is some sort of sensational exception, an unprecedented development in the train of cultural thought, that, contrary to what feisty female child owners took for granted, namely their ownership and their renting of the children to the father as long as he behaved the good servant to their whims and decrees (yes you can, may and should think of Ester Vilar here), the rental should continue even(!) if they have come to dislike him from their sacred guts? On what grounds, for Heaven’s sake? Just for his paying child-support? And/or alimony?
Isn’t that equivalent to a revolution in female ethics? Aren’t the children the most private private property of a woman one can imagine? Isn’t it the fundamental tradition of modern womanhood that the children belong to her, and her alone?
Can you get the sense of the spoiled brat expressing itself in the simple “even”? It implies it is even a grace of the mother that she allows the father to act the father right from the beginning.
One in three children grow up without a father. In some cases, this is because the father bolted, or is behind bars.
Heinous derogation of men, and elation of women. Why not start with: In some cases, this is because the father was murdered or fell in war or had a lethal accident or died from illness?
But in many cases it is because mother banned him after an acrimonious divorce. This could be because he was a child abuser, or a wife-batterer – or because his drinking makes him dangerous.
No, I’d rather begin with: This could be because he was a serial killer or a drug baron – or because his paranoid schizophrenia makes him dangerous.
But often it is down to mother’s anger.
Often? Well, if 99% counts as often, one may agree. On the other hand, without meaning it so, she is right as well. We can split the 99% into vengeance, spite, jealousy, money, pride, self-righteousness, hubris, lust of power, hate, and anger as the byproduct of all those rationalizations, cooked up to have the fuel for a good conscience while committing the crime against both, the children and the fathers.
I pray that if ever my husband and I were to break up I would prove saintly and wise, and let him see the children.
Which first presupposes that only a saint or a wise person in a female body can muster the minimum of moral decency to not commit the usual crime. Which says a true and significant lot about woman’s moral standing. She has absolute power given by law and by the courts, and she lets herself be absolutely corrupted by it.
I hope that, in the midst of my fury and hatred, I would be able to put the children’s interests above mine. But I can’t swear that I’d be any different from the hundreds of thousands of women who each year go to the family court to wrangle with their former spouse over his access to the kids. (Some don’t even do that: they accept in principle his right to see the children, but in practice place obstacles to any visit.)
Oh my, why should she aspire to be a heroine of selflessness? The presumptions are stunning: First she takes it for somehow magically and categorically granted that the divorce is his fault, not hers. Second, she presumes her interest would be to have the children be separated from their father, but not hers as an individual but again as member of the class of mothers. Can we hear that? “It’s in our interest to eject the fathers from the life of his children!” Who thinks like that? A profiteer? A sadist? A rival? All of that, and no one whosoever in the mindset of a parent! But well, who said that mothers these days are set up to feel like parents? You know those strange people who put the interests of their children before their own, as a matter of unquestioned attitude?
No, motherhood has long been eradicated from the mind of the western woman. She is an unabashed egotist, and proud of it. Because this is what the new woman is. This is the new role of the female sex. I am in this world to have the rest of it live up to my service.
Usually, the less state intervention in the family the better. As I wrote earlier this week, I don’t want to always look over my shoulders, fearful lest social services grab my child if I spank her bottom or shout at her father. But there are instances, divorce chief among them, when a family’s behaviour has such huge consequences for those outside it that the state must step in. A child brought up by only one parent is more likely to abuse drugs, drop out of school, fail to hold down a job, or end up in jail.
No, Honey, the studies deal with children who grow up without a father, not without the second parent! You grasp the difference? Children who grow up with only their fathers are a lot better off compared to those who grow up with only their mother! It is not sex-neutral. It’s sex-dependent. Fathers strengthen the children’s self, they provide the authority and guidance required to build up so-called ego-strength, which basically is the opposite of a sense of entitlement and a habit of indulging in narcissistic demands and imaginations. Mothers do not, to a comparable degree. They avoid the hardship of being in authority which means to take on responsibility and risk conflict and not give in to the nagging or frothing of the child trying to get his way. Exactly what women do who file for divorce instead of working out the unavoidable conflicts between them and their men. Or don’t you know that wives file for divorce in 70 to 80 percent of the cases? The weakness of women is that they go the easier way. And it’s easier to separate than to live up to the demands of living together. As it is easier to become single owner of the children than to work out the conflicts of parenting with the father.
That’s bad news for the family, but also for the rest of us.
Divorce is ugly, and its scars long-lasting. As the child of divorced parents, it took me until I was in my 40s to overcome my phobia of marriage: I knew all too well the pain of break-up. But if children continue to have access to both parents – even if this has to be legally enforced – they have a chance of surviving the emotional upheaval. The government finally agrees.
Yes, surviving is the issue. Of course, don’t we know that children die by the millions from not seeing their fathers? Mindless hysteria in the use of terms. And again, as you link yourself to the article in the Daily Mail from 2010, the ratio between children not seeing their mothers to children not seeing their fathers is more than 13 to 1. The numbers given in the article are 2.7 million to 200.000. So drop that mystification of “access to both parents”! And this is without extracting the numbers from the 900.000 so-called step-families. From these, 86% involve the woman’s children with her former husband or boyfriend, as reported:
In the UK, just 11% of parents share the care equally of their children after separation and divorce. The Office for National Statistics‘ general lifestyle survey found that in 2009 86% of stepfamilies in Great Britain were formed by a couple with children from the woman’s previous marriage or cohabitation, while 8% of stepfamilies cared for children from the man’s previous marriage or cohabitation. Just 7% of stepfamilies live with children from both partners’ previous marriage or cohabitation.
Wow, the behaviour of families? Nope, the behaviour of the parents, and no, not even this, the behaviour of the mothers – that is the problem which makes the children suffer! Again, it is the mothers who cut out the father from the life of their children who are to be blamed and are guilty of causing the heartsickness of the children and the fathers. It is them who are guilty of instigating what is called emotional disorders and social deviance behaviour of the children. The fashionable denial of it not withstanding which comes in the form of talking about “single parent households” and all the deflecting manipulation crap of the Telegraph article of Christina Odone, quoted above.
She is a Christian, an active, engaged! Yeah, this is true Christianity. If you do not act out the lowliest of selfishness and cruelty against little children for the sake of your self-worth, you already qualify for sainthood and wisdom. People in command of basic rationality and decency call it your duty, the absolute minimum of morality, to abide by the reality that the like or dislike of the mother for the father does in no way at all authorize her to fumble with the relationship of father and children.
But modern woman is at the moral level of the worst of spoiled brats, radically narcissistic, bare of empathy, bare of love, bare of respect for the inviolate identity and dignity of the other. She is a moral and spiritual moron, an unleashed sociopath by default. Murderous by default, as her demand for and use of the legalization of abortion demonstrates, cruel and brutal by default, as the systematic and prevalent alienation of the children from the father demonstrates, in complete denial of her selfishness’ evil, as this article demonstrates.