Off to work they march.
Most believe that Communism did not take hold in the U.S.A. McCarthy was a great American patriot that ensured that America was not devoured by communists working from the inside. However, various components of Communism arrived and took hold, including ‘no-fault’ divorce. Equality for women was encouraged which effectively gave a greater workforce to the corporations.
House prices doubled and so two incomes became necessary to survive in a family. So, just like Russia, women were given no choice but to work.
Marriage is a very important institution for society. This is worded beautifully by:
Sheri Dew: “Neither man nor woman is perfect or complete without the other. Thus, no marriage or family, no ward or stake is likely to reach its full potential until husbands and wives, mothers and fathers, men and women work together in unity of purpose, respecting and relying upon each other’s strengths.”
The upbringing of the young causes society to continue. The welfare and training of the young are paramount. Stable marriages lead to happy, healthy, and motivated offspring, leading to stronger communities, more opportunities, and greater equality. Jesus instructs us to do the right thing by the young in:
“But if you cause one of these little ones who trusts in me to fall into sin, it would be better for you to be thrown into the sea with a large millstone hung around your neck.” [Mark 9:42]
And this is effectively the theme for marriage. Marriage is bigger than the two individuals. Marriage is the joining of two with the obvious outcome of producing children. These children need to be brought up in a harmonious household free from a conflict between a male and a female. This is clearly not easy to achieve. It has been problematic since the beginning of human cooperation. It is essential for society to get the best family arrangement for the future offspring that join society.
Sheri Dew: “You were born to lead as mothers and fathers, because nowhere is righteous leadership more crucial than in the family.”
In the U.S.A., seventy percent of the inmates in jails were brought up in a single parent household which is a euphemism for a female-headed-household. Damaged family units are not good for the future of society.
Run a web-search for “The Messiah will only come when Europe is destroyed”
As in the time of Jesus, the pressure to break the family unit has reappeared. Here are some more words from:
Sheri Dew: “Satan has declared war on motherhood. He knows that those who rock the cradle can rock his earthly empire. And he knows that without righteous mothers loving and leading the next generation, the Kingdom of God will fail.”
She hints that the power resides with the mother who operates the nursery. This is a component of ‘The Secret’. If females want males to respect females, the time to do it is when the males are very young and accept every word from their mother. I, for one, cannot hit a girl because my mother impressed it upon me. The mother encourages and demands respect for females so that the male will carry this through life. She shows him love and discipline in a firm manner. The male will then, in his rough and tough future, treat females with respect and dignity. She does not teach him cooking so that the future wife has power over his stomach. She does not teach him housework so that the future wife can control his environment. She takes all emotion out of him so he is emotionless and requires female guidance. He becomes reliant on females for food, home, sex, and emotional guidance. He becomes dependant on his future wife. He is made macho and told that is what women want. He becomes dependent on women’s opinion of his macho status. Sexually provocative images of women in city centre statues make him curious about the female form. He becomes addicted to the woman’s body. Grandmothers, mothers, and daughters work as a relay team to maintain the male macho image so that they remain as useful tools to women.
If this nexus is broken, then the welfare of females is jeopardized. If the male is brought up to look after and care for a female in the home environment, he will assume that monogamy without mistresses is the norm. He also needs to be assured that it is the female that calls the shots when it comes to sex. The male is encouraged to treat other males that disobey this code with the harshest of terms. The Australian Aboriginals have a similar code. I was asked to make sign for a group of aboriginals on a protest camp in central Perth. It was to say: ‘Woman’s Business’. If a male was caught transgressing, they would say: “You’re in big trouble.” They wouldn’t punish him themselves, but would refer it to the males. The women would not hurt him or beat him. The men would. The punishment could be severe and could involve death or leg spearing. Punishment was harsh, but this usually means that the problem does not occur very often.
At a guess, Sheri Dew is talking about the following comments made by purveyors of the Bolshevik Revolution which was revitalized as the ‘sexual revolution’ in the West. Here are some feminist quotes:
Linda Gordon: [Feminist] “the nuclear family must be destroyed... Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process. ... Families have supported oppression by separating people into small, isolated units, unable to join together to fight for common interests.” [Jewish]
Masha Gessen: “It’s a no-brainer that we should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist...” [Cheers from the audience] [American lesbian, Masha Gessen, at a 2012 Festival in Sydney]
Gloria Steinem: [Feminist] described marriage as “an arrangement for one and a half people.” [Jewish]
Gloria Steinem: [Feminist] “We have to abolish and reform the institution of marriage...” [Jewish]
Jewish feminist, Susan Gubar: “Jewish experience has profoundly shaped the evolution of feminist thinking in our times.” [2]
Andrea Dworkin [Feminist]: “How can anyone love someone who is less than a full person, unless love itself is domination per se?” [Jewish; Anarchist; Radical Feminist; LGBT]
Andrea Dworkin: [Feminist] “Marriage as an institution developed from rape as a practice. Rape, originally defined as abduction, became marriage by capture. Marriage meant the taking was to extend in time, to be not only use of but possession of, or ownership.” [Jewish; Anarchist; Radical Feminist; LGBT]
Some first class illogic:
Andrea Dworkin: [Feminist] “No woman needs intercourse; few women escape it.” [Jewish; Anarchist; Radical Feminist; LGBT]
Using my ‘Try the Opposite’ rule we get: “No man needs intercourse; few men escape it.” It still fails the logic test. Now some more idiotic illogic.
Kate Millett: [Feminist] “so long as every female, simply by virtue of her anatomy, is obliged, even forced, to be the sole or primary caretaker of childhood, she is prevented from being a free human being.”
Should not women be ‘free’ to have babies! The woman is a first class idiot.
Robin Morgan: [Feminist] “We can’t destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage.”
Women do quite well out of marriage. It saves them working for money. People only get paid for working because they would not do it if they were not paid. Thus, work is always something that you do not want to get out of bed for.
Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood: “The most merciful thing a large family can do to one of its infant members is to kill it.” [1]
Israeli soldiers are good at that. Nice bit of genocide like killing the eldest born of each family in the old bible. (The testament that needs to be discarded because of its evil content.) Moses says: “Every firstborn son in Egypt will die, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sits on the throne, to the firstborn son of the female slave...” The old testament must go. It is shocking.
The Declaration of Feminism, 1971: “Marriage has existed for the benefit of men; and has been a legally sanctioned method of control over women... We must work to destroy it. The end of the institution of marriage is a necessary condition for the liberation of women. Therefore it is important for us to encourage women to leave their husbands and not to live individually with men.”
Try the opposite: “Marriage has existed for the benefit of women; and has been a legally sanctioned method of control over men.” True.
If men had been oppressors, they had not done a very good job of oppressing. Women retained the power of ‘No’, generally escaped war, and did not have to work in the horrible work situations of males. Serious penalty arrives for men when they stray from the norms demanded by women.
Kate Millet: [Feminist] “The care of children ...is infinitely better left to the best-trained practitioners of both sexes who have chosen it as a vocation...[This] would further undermine family structure while contributing to the freedom of women.” [3]
Andrea Dworkin 1976: [Feminist] “Only when manhood is dead - and it will perish when ravaged femininity no longer sustains it - only then will we know what it is to be free.” [4]
Robin Morgan: “I feel that ‘man-hating’ is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them.” [Robin Morgan, (editor of MS magazine)]
Should men hate women if they find that women oppress men?
Roxanne Dunbar: “How will the family unit be destroyed? ... the demand alone will throw the whole ideology of the family into question, so that women can begin establishing a community of work with each other and we can fight collectively. Women will feel freer to leave their husbands and become economically independent, either through a job or welfare.” [Female Liberation, by Roxanne Dunbar.]
Mary Jo Bane: “in order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them.” [Feminist]
Letter to the Editor: “Who cares how men feel or what they do or whether they suffer? They have had over 2000 years to dominate and made a complete hash of it. Now it is our turn. My only comment to men is, if you don’t like it, bad luck — and if you get in my way I’ll run you down.” [Letter to the Editor: Women’s Turn to Dominate, Signed: Liberated Women, Boronia; Herald-Sun, Melbourne, Australia, February 1996]
Do we want hate or cooperation?
Claudia Card: “Legal marriage thus enlists state support for conditions conducive to murder and mayhem.” [In her essay, ‘Against Marriage and Motherhood’, ‘Hypatia,’ volume 11, number 3, Summer 1996, Claudia Card]
Valerie Solana: “Life in this society being, at best, an utter bore and no aspect of society being at all relevant to women, there remains to civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking females only to overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation, and destroy the male sex.” [Valerie Solana, SCUM Manifesto (Society for Cutting Up Men.)]
Genocide for breakfast! Nice lady.
Vivian Gornick: “being a housewife is an illegitimate profession... The choice to serve and be protected and plan towards being a family-maker is a choice that shouldn’t be. The heart of radical feminism is to change that.” [Jewish] [Feminist]
No choices for females.
This picture shows Soviet women freed from the slavery of the kitchen to enjoy the ‘freedom’ of laying road stones in the icy cold weather. You can just sense their enthusiasm for the new found ‘freedom’. Just look at the efficiency. I count seven road workers to repair a few square metres of road. None of them are actually working and yet it is not a staged photo. There appears to be a missing ingredient called motivation. They are welcome to it. I’ll choose the slavery of the kitchen over the freedom of laying cobblestones. In reality, the women laid cobblestones by day, and then went and completed the home chores afterward.
Betty Friedan: “women who ‘adjust’ as housewives, who grow up wanting to be ‘just a housewife,’ are in as much danger as the millions who walked to their own death in the concentration camps... they are suffering a slow death of mind and spirit.”
Naomi Goldenberg: “God is going to change. We women... will change the world so much that He won’t fit anymore.” [Naomi Goldenberg, Changing of the Gods: Feminism and the End of Traditional Religions]
Satan’s Pulpit is intent on destroying the institutions of marriage and the family as the building block of civilization. Girls have been fed the line by Satan’s Pulpit that to be worthy of respect, she should devote her time and efforts to the workplace, at the expense of marriage and children.
As a comparison, this next one is from an old American Communist Party pamphlet called: ‘Woman Against Myth’ by:
Mary Inman 1948: “Rape is an expression of ... male supremacy ... the age-old economic, political and cultural exploitation of women by men.”
The family has undergone a dramatic transformation during my lifetime. Since 1960, the number of single parents in America has trebled. Almost one-third of households are now single-parent families, mostly mothers. The change is most noticeable in the low and middle-income households. More than forty percent of single mothers live at or below the poverty line compared with ten percent of married mothers. One example is Baltimore where only sixteen percent of fifteen to seventeen-year-old teens have been raised in an intact, married family. [5] The sexual revolution has been remarkably successful at destroying the family and expanding the workforce at the expense of women’s leisure time. One blogger gets close to the truth:
“I think the sexual revolution is very male-oriented and anti-woman. The idea is that men are telling women they’re free to fuck around with whomever they want.” [Hite, Shere. The Hite Report: A Nationwide Study of Female Sexuality P354.]
One girl gives her insight into the effect of the sexual revolution:
“Usually after they know they ‘have’ me, I get the feeling I am a piece of ass. I feel their hostility and their contempt.
I started out when I was very young open, natural, warm, spontaneous, uninhibited and in ten years I’ve become bitter, cold, cynical, angry, resentful, hateful, frightened, suspicious. I don’t like it but that’s where I’ve ended up.” [Hite, Shere. The Hite Report: A Nationwide Study of Female Sexuality P354.]
We also need to be troubled by motherlessness and fatherlessness. In 1960, in the U.S.A., twenty-two percent of black children were raised with only one parent. By 1985, this had almost tripled to sixty-seven percent. In 1938, eleven percent of black children and three percent of white children were born to unwed mothers. [12] Currently, over seventy-three percent of black babies are born to unwed mothers. Children of single mothers do worse in areas including: school achievement, poverty, crime, emotional well-being, drug use, delinquency, and violent behaviour. Welfare appears to undermine marriage and puts persons under the care of the state. This is a shift in influence from family to state which just happens to be a tenet of communism.
“Feminism was the dumbest thing women ever did not only will it destroy civilization but also women’s social and reproductive value.”
In a culture of sexual revolution, adult access to sexual pleasure appears to override the best interests of children. Females, in the interests of equality, were encouraged to copy the male sexual pattern and engage in promiscuous sexual intercourse. This is on the basis that men had the situation interpreted correctly and females had interpreted incorrectly. In real logic: ‘Women were wrong and men were right’. Typical of the screeching illogic, this is entirely the wrong way around. The problem in society was male promiscuity, not female moral behaviour. Male behaviour should have been brought in line with women’s moral behaviour and not the other way around. Promiscuous sex is thus presumed to be the norm for males and females alike. Would it not be appropriate that males and females should not be promiscuous? That both should restrain and both ‘partner up’ in unions. Both would then be equal in that they were doing the same thing. Male and female should be equally non-promiscuous. We can never get around various differences between male and female and the assumption of equality is that in those areas where it is possible to be the same, we can be the same. As one wag quipped: “Women can’t write their name in the snow.” For a male, sex is a three-minute exercise. For females, it is a lifetime exercise, that is why the woman tests out the man when she meets him to see if he is capable of lasting the course. When we became civilized, and in fact when we were hunter-gatherers, males took over many of the tasks that would otherwise have been done by females in the animal kingdom. In civilization, the male was to provide not just his share, but everything: money, food, shelter, security and more. In nature, he would have done sod all. Civilization made man work for the benefit of society and family in an arrangement that was, in effect, enslavement by females. If he wanted to partake in sex, he had to acquiesce to the rules and demands of women. The rules were enforced by, guess who? — males. “You wish to cohabit with my daughter? Marry her, stay with her, provide for her, care for her until death. And if you don’t, we pay you a visit for a bit of retribution.” That has been in vogue since the beginning of civilization, with a few variations. It also occurred in various variations in our hunter-gather past. To change this is to change the whole basis of society. The Bolsheviks tried it in the U.S.S.R. but now the churches are full again although they still have not recovered from a high divorce rate. So how long will the current fad last?
Feminists were dedicated supporters of the sexual revolution, viewing female participation in casual sexual activity as an unmistakable declaration of female equality with males. But this is classic illogic. It is like saying: “Men are bad. We want to be like men.” If males were all bad, why start emulating males? Males were rough and tough for a reason. They were even trained to be even rougher and tougher for protection of society. Sports like rugby and football were designed as war training and war replacement. The protection of society meant the women and children in society. Males went down with the ship. Historically, women could not be promiscuous because it had consequences. Other than childhood, there was a disease issue, and the difficulty in persuading a man to marry her if she had slept with the village. As a girl said to me, in broken English, close to midnight on New Year’s Eve: “Why does the man not want to marry me?” She was twenty-four and could not comprehend why it was so difficult to find a soulmate. But why would a man marry?
Marriage and families involve foregoing one’s self-interest for others, particularly the children’s interests. In the USA in 1970, nearly eighty percent of women at the age of thirty-five were married with children, while slightly less than ten percent were single with children — a ratio of 8 to 1. By 2010, the ratio was around 2.5 to 1, with about half of women married with children and twenty percent single with children. For women under the age of thirty in the U.S.A., more than fifty percent of all babies are being born out of wedlock. Again in the USA, there are government plans to create ‘full-service community schools’ which will be government centres that will usurp responsibilities over children that have traditionally been handled by parents and families. The ‘community schools’ will cover the children’s ‘academic, physical, social, emotional, health, mental health, and other needs’. It sounds like a chapter from a Communist handbook.
A report from MIT ‘discovers’ that boys do much better when raised in a traditional family environment. This matches Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s notable warning in 1965:
“From the wild Irish slums of the 19th century Eastern seaboard, to the riot-torn suburbs of Los Angeles, there is one unmistakable lesson in American history: a community that allows a large number of men to grow up in broken families, dominated by women, never acquiring any stable relationship to male authority, never acquiring any set of rational expectations about the future — that community asks for and gets chaos.”
You may see that feminism is a rebirth of Marxism. Marxism blamed capitalism whilst feminism blames patriarchy. Same game, different bogey-man.
“The family relation is the ‘seedbed of society’ ”, as the Calvinist jurisprudential thinker Johannes Althusius put it, and is the foundation of nurture and duty to one’s neighbour.
Marriage has been a union created through love but made with a covenant formalized by the church but made in front of both families and all friends. This covenantal union was inviolable except in extreme circumstances such as abandonment or adultery. In the Christian West, marriage was considered sacred. A natural consequence of the sacred marriage was the creation of children. These children were born into a family which was a safe and stable environment. The formalized covenant helped to create the stable environment for the upbringing of the future children of the society. Without contraception, marriage meant family. Without easy divorce, a couple had to work out how they were going to resolve differences as there was no ‘easy out’. No-fault divorce allows couples to take the easy option and walk out of the marriage. If the husband or the wife had enough of the other, experiences ‘boredom’, ‘falls out of love’, or can’t handle the pressure anymore, separation is easily obtainable. Divorce allows parties to relinquish most obligations inherent in a marriage, including the obligations of companionship, protection, provision, and sexual fidelity. But worst of all, it prejudices against the child. One person’ rights are another person’s responsibility. The demand for individual rights in divorce completely ignore the right of every child to a quality upbringing. With no-fault divorce, there is a greatly reduced incentive to maintain the responsibilities of parenthood.
No-fault divorce creates an interesting conundrum. In the late 1960s and 1970s, the introduction of no-fault divorce was sold to the people as a revolution in marriage arrangements. It was no revolution as it had been tried and failed in Russia and effectively took society back to the era of easy divorce before Jesus. Jesus, in a revolutionary move, eradicated the any-fault divorce racket which favoured males. The concept was that a marriage could be annulled (by the state) if there were irreconcilable differences, even if the Church refused to do so. Part of the concept was that the union could be dissolved with the maximum fairness, and with minimum bitterness, distress, and humiliation which is window dressing for bitterness, distress, humiliation, and a lack of fairness. Our adversarial so-called ‘justice’ system tends to create this bitterness as justice goes to the partner with the best-paid lawyer. The state may be able to dissolve a marriage, but you cannot destroy the history of the relationship between these two people that were hopelessly in love with each other and nor can you eliminate parental responsibility. I usually joke:
“You cannot divorce the children.”
No-fault divorce creates a marriage that is dissoluble whilst parenthood remains indissoluble. As soon as a couple have children, there is an indissoluble family. Thus you may annul the marriage but the connection through the children remains. The joint responsibility for the children is indissoluble. The couple may live under separate roofs, but they still have to cooperate for the upbringing of the child. Thus no-fault divorce puts the demands of the individual above the rights of the child. Individual rights are overriding community needs. We have gone against the very essence of civilization. Civilization requires that the needs of the community take precedence over individual rights. Civilization can only operate when individuals cooperate. Cooperation requires that individuals concede to others on matters of community need. The rights of the community should override individual rights. Every child has the right to an upbringing in a good family home. It is thus the duty of the parents to create that good family home and work together to do so. Petty differences and demands have to be put aside for the benefit of the children. There needs to be a re-evaluation of the concept of no-fault divorce. Part of the reason for the introduction of the no-fault divorce was that on occasions a partner was being abused. It could be reasoned that abuse should be grounds for divorce. The problem again is that an impersonal government is the authority in the matter of marriage. As mentioned, the marriage vows, which since Jesus, meant for-life, were taken in front of family, friends, and church. The nation-state ‘legal’ marriage was merely a cold-hearted signing of a registry in front of a cold-hearted bureaucrat who was more interested in getting home than the welfare of the couple. The cold-hearted government then annuls a marriage that was made primarily in front of friends, family, and church. These three are the first port of call when the relationship hits stormy waters. The hens-day is a gathering of the support team for the woman and the bucks night is the support team for the male. They even give him the last ‘taste of freedom’ with some scantily clad girls whacking him around with a belt and tipping a bucket of ice down his underpants.
He is made to get on his knees with his belt as a noose around his neck. One girl drags him by the belt whilst the other sits on his back, whacking him as if he were a donkey. His mates roar with laughter as he demonstrates that he is willing to come under the control of women. Each time they give him a good whack, his mates clap and roar loudly. He has to take the punishment ‘as a man!’
In a marriage, the friends and family are the first level of influence in the event of disharmony. I sometimes say it in this way:
This demands that family and friends assist both in keeping the marriage healthy as well as removing forces that might split the relationship. The last place to go is a lawyer. Lawyers make money out of disputes. They have a natural tendency to elevate disputes. Relationships work on feelings and mutual respect, not logic. As soon as you start to use excessive logic in a relationship, the relationship is doomed. Lawyers use logic alone, so a relationship that is based on emotional connection is analyzed in a battle of logic by cold-hearted lawyers. In the hands of lawyers, a relationship has no chance of survival. So, family and friends are the first two levels and the church is the third level. If they can’t fix it, they tolerate it going to the greedy lawyers who will have a destructive feeding frenzy. Marriage needs to be put back where it belongs, with the family, friends, community, and church. The lawyers and the nation-state are so logical that they divide the property and they divide the children. Lawyers and the nation-state operate on logic and reason whereas a relationship operates on emotional connection. Logic has no chance of repairing a relationship. The nation-state cannot split the children down the centre because that would break another law — they divide them on a time basis rather than a physical basis. But children were created by the loving coupling of a man and a woman, so the children only get a fraction of the care that they would have done.
The parents could be considered selfish for demanding their rights without considering the rights of the child. In one ‘B’ grade movie, the woman screamed: “I want a divorce. I am no longer in love with you.” She is demanding her ‘rights’ with the implication that no-one else’s situation is of consequence. There was no comment made in the movie. It was treated as an absolute. The next stage was a divorce. There was no mediation or attempts at repair, just a cold-hearted government annulment. There is plenty of media encouragement for this as well:
Daily Mail: “Cheating housewife: Eva Longoria played a woman who had an affair with her gardener, played by Jesse Metcalfe, in Desperate Housewives” [15]
A magazine has the title:
Cosmopolitan: “What Women Really Think About Going Down on Women” [16]
Once you are married and have children, you are tied together permanently through the product of your liaison. That tie can never be broken. This needs to be tied into the marriage laws. There is a massive difference between divorce before children and divorce when children are involved. Divorce before children is somewhat insignificant. It is not reasonable to fold a marriage purely on the demands of one individual. The cost to the children of damaged marriages is significant enough, but there are huge costs to society. These include significant social problems with offspring. There are massive cost implications for the public purse in the areas of aged care, health, and youth affairs. The costs of family breakdown are carried by public money. According to:
Professor Patrick Parkinson: “A British study found the costs of family breakdown were £41.74 billion in 2011, or £1,364 for every taxpayer. A Canadian study, published in 2009, estimated the costs in that country as 7 billion Canadian dollars per year. A US study estimated the costs of family breakdown and unmarried parenthood in 2008 as being at least $112 billion per year. There is, of course, plenty of scope for argument about the detail, but the broad picture is clear. Such calculations do not include the less measurable costs such as the intergenerational impacts considered in this Article. The human costs are, of course, immeasurable.” [17]
Divorce also ends up as the primary source of poverty among the working people. There are immense economic consequences of the ‘Divorce Revolution’ both for the individuals and the state. In Australia in 2014, the Commonwealth Government spent $12.5 billion on support payments to single-parents, including rent assistance and other benefits. [18] Divorce has negative consequences for income and financial circumstances in older age. Divorced persons in Australia are more reliant on the public pension. Divorce also causes a society duplication in housing needs. In the words of:
Professor Parkinson: “People cannot go from one household into two households, with a duplication of housing costs, furnishings and appliances, and other such expenses, without suffering a significant loss of living standards.” [17]
There are large health differences between married men and women and men and women who are separated or divorced or widowed. [6] These separated or divorced or widowed persons have greater mortality rates, more acute symptoms, and more mental health issues. [6] There is also an unfortunate rise in health issues for women caused by divorce and separation. One Australian report states that single mothers are almost twice as likely to report health conditions. [7] Divorced women and sole mothers tend to be at a significantly higher risk of depression. [7] Another report found that the risk of suicide among the divorced, separated, and widowed is about seventy-five percent higher. [8] [9] Children of divorced parents have significant emotional, behavioural, social, health, and academic issues. [10] Professor Paul Amato tells us:
“In 2002 there were about twenty-nine million children in the United States between the ages of twelve and eighteen ... nearly seven million children in this age group will have repeated a grade. Increasing the share of adolescents living with two biological parents to the 1980 level... suggests that some 300,000 fewer children would repeat a grade. Correspondingly, increasing the share of adolescents living with two biological parents to the 1970 level would mean that 643,264 fewer children would repeat a grade. Finally, increasing the share of adolescents in two-parent families to the 1960 level suggests that nearly three-quarters of a million fewer children would repeat a grade. Similarly, increasing marital stability to its 1980 level would result in nearly half a million fewer children suspended from school, about 200,000 fewer children engaging in delinquency or violence, a quarter of a million fewer children receiving therapy, about a quarter of a million fewer smokers, about eighty-thousand fewer children thinking about suicide, and about twenty-eight-thousand fewer children attempting suicide. Seen from this perspective, restoring family stability to levels of a few decades ago could dramatically affect the lives of many children.” [10]
If you had an enemy nation that you wished to destroy, a good tactic would be to promote feminism and sexual liberation. I wonder which enemy introduced it to our nations?
Individual youths sometimes say to me: “Andy. We are children of the divorce generation.” They are the wounded children of the liberalized divorce laws. They are confused as to why their so-called “loving parents” would do this to them. The divorce is effectively caused by one parent being unwilling to compromise to a spouse in a relationship that relies on love and sacrifice for its maintenance and continuity. To refuse to compromise is to act in one’s own self-interest rather than the interest of the complete family. Individual rights are allowed to override the needs of the family community. Once a couple has children, they need to make it work. The marriage must work. Individual rights take the back seat. It is not just the health and welfare of the wounded children of the divorce generation, there is a significant issue with the ability to create relationships that may affect things way into the future. The family tree comes to an abrupt end, not because of your divorce but because your offspring do not make additions to the family tree. The young tell me about their issues creating relationships because of the damage done to them by their parent’s lack of thought. The church needs to stand with the young and not the parents. There are countless victims of the sexual revolution both in Bolshevik Russia following 1917 and the widely pushed sexual revolution in western countries. Significant effort needs to be made to minimize the harm caused by divorce. Effort needs to be made to stop the constant clamour of Satan’s Pulpit promoting inappropriate behaviour, adultery, and breakups. Divorce is an act that destroys families which leads to the emotional wounding of children and harm for the community. Just quiz the children of separated parents. One wonderful girl of twenty was chatting with me one evening and told me that her mother had run off with a twenty-one-year-old male. She and her siblings had been abandoned to her father. She spoke of her father’s devastation at the issue but claimed that she was ‘over it’ now. The conversation showed otherwise. At twenty, she was struggling with the concept of boyfriend. Emotional problems follow these children through adolescence to affect their adulthood.
The simplistic assumption that divorce can dissolve a family unit should be abandoned. Marriage with children is for life, irrespective of stupid paperwork from a heartless nation-state. The fundamental concepts behind the no-fault divorce revolution are false. The heartless state cannot dissolve a family. Emeritus Professor Margo Melli puts it this way:
“Today, divorce is not the end of a relationship but a restructuring of a continuing relationship.”
A marriage may be dissoluble by law, but a family is indissoluble. The state is being ignorant because the state cannot make parenthood dissoluble. One cannot erase a relationship. One cannot erase a child’s relationship to the family.
Marriage continues to be the most important contract in civilization. Even the move to cohabiting is problematic. An Australian study determined that the chances of a cohabiting couple with children breaking up are greater by a factor of seven than a married couple who had not lived together before marriage, and greater by a factor of four than a married couple who had cohabited before marriage. [11]
Certainly, longer waiting periods need to be implemented before divorce. Certainly, family, friends, and Church need to be involved in mediation. The extended family needs to put more effort into keeping the marriage strong.
The traditional family is one which has a husband, a wife not working outside the home, and children. These now only constitute fourteen percent of American families. [14]
[This article was particularly illuminating on the subject: Christopher Brohier And Augusto Zimmermann - The Western Australian Jurist 173 Avoiding Unnecessary Divorce And Restoring Justice in Marital Separations - Review of The Family Law Act 1975 (FLA)]
Gillis Triplett lists the items of a scheme to destroy the family unit [13]:
Now back to basics. As mentioned, all of the courting procedure and the coupling procedure is embedded in our DNA. From meeting to mating can all be achieved without the use of words or speech. The hand holding and the ‘stay with me’ appear to be programmed into our DNA. Thus, our reptilian brain is capable of making us stay with one female for four years. Some illustrations suggest that hunter-gatherer males wielded clubs and dragged women around by the hair. I don’t think this is correct. If you look at male-female behaviour in say a noisy nightclub, eye signals and facial expressions seem to predominate. Monkeys seem to have consensual sex. My belief is that women did what women are good at and they wiggled and smiled to attract the appropriate male. They would then play difficult for a few days in a ‘come and get me’ routine whilst preparing a homely atmosphere to keep him around. When he was sufficiently enamoured and she was sure that he was going to ‘hang around’, she would allow him to ‘win her over’. Bingo. Pregnant and a male around to care for her during pregnancy. All accomplished without textbooks nor speech and logical thinking.
Violent sex would have occurred on occasions. The activities around refugee camps make me think this occurred. Refugee camps have a tendency to contain many women. When the women leave the camp to collect wood, they get ambushed and ‘serviced’ by predatory males. Even so, there may not be violence.
Some forced sex may possibly have been invited. Some of the tricks played by current women desperate to get laid (pregnant) frighten me. One young male said to me in man-talk: “Don’t trust a condom given to you by a woman. It might have a hole in it.” This is a demonstration of the lack of trust in women. This is a report in the Sun newspaper. It does appear to have flawed logic.
“Lara Carter has slept with twenty strangers in the past year - in a desperate and reckless bid to get pregnant. The self-confessed ‘sperm hunter’ uses ovulation kits to tell her when she is most fertile then pretends to be drunk, throwing herself at unsuspecting fellas and making it obvious she wants sex.
If Lara, 25, meets a man who wants to use a condom, she will offer one from her purse - which she has already pierced a hole in.” [13]
Under the current regime, the man will, of course, be forced to pay child support. I pity the child that will be the result of the liaison. She does not demonstrate responsible parental material and we will have another child brought up in a fatherless home.
One comment was:
“Would this be acceptable if a man who wanted to father children went around having unprotected sex with a pricked condom?”
Another comment:
“The SUN = Lies, lies and more lies.”
Another comment:
“She’s apparently had unprotected sex with twenty different men (and men, it should be pointed out, who are apparently prepared to have unprotected sex with a woman they have known for a couple of hours tops, which would tend to shorten the odds on picking up an STD), at the height of her fertility, yet has failed to either get pregnant or get an STD. Just what are the odds of that? ...she’s an attention whore to the extent she’ll happily be featured in a popular national newspaper...”
I’ll finish this off with the words of Max Horkheimer:
“The Revolution won’t happen with guns, rather it will happen incrementally, year by year, generation by generation. We will gradually infiltrate their educational institutions and their political offices, transforming them slowly into Marxist entities as we move towards universal egalitarianism.”
Breibart reported that traditional depictions of mothers is to be banned in adverts:
“Cooking, cleaning mums will be banned in advertisements across the UK from next year, following a study which claimed traditional gender roles are ‘harmful and outdated’. The decision to tighten regulation was announced by the Committees of Advertising Practice (CAP) this week, after a report published in summer identified gender stereotypes in adverts as a driver of inequality between men and women.”
