Fathers useful for children's
who are closely involved in their children's upbringing have a positive impact
on academic achievement, say researchers.
Well, what a surprise!
Do older readers especially not find the very fact that this is actually
'news' absolutely sickening?
And, for younger readers, thirty or less, let
me make it very clear lest
there be any doubts.
The so-called experts on children - when you were young -
the teachers, the social workers, the police, the justice system, the children's
charities, the psychologists, many of those in the media, the agony aunts have done their utmost to conceal what must
have been obvious to just about any of them with any intelligence - that fathers
are not only very important for children (and for boys especially) but also that
without them it is clear that their children are far more likely to have long
And there are three basic reasons why these so-called experts
have, for decades, failed so abysmally even to make mention of the importance of
fathers let alone to highlight it.
The first is that the sheer nastiness, vengefulness and
dishonesty of leading feminist women within the media and in academia for the
past three decades have made the costs of speaking out against their hateful
agenda far too high. And anyone who even dared to support the view publicly that
fathers were of significant importance for their children was considered to be 'anti-women'. Those who dared to speak out for fathers were 'marked', targeted and,
in some way, debilitated.
As just one example, I clearly
remember how in the mid 1980s the head of a London school was hounded by the
media and many of his own teachers for daring to suggest that the children of
single mothers were disadvantaged educationally compared to those who lived with
their own two parents.
Calls for this poor man to be
booted out of his job went on for days.
His sin, of course, was that he
was 'slighting' single mothers - and women could never be criticised in those
There were phone-ins, discussions
and chat shows on the issue, with feminist supporters rallied into the studio
audiences and lobbied to pick up their phones.
It was an orchestrated nightmare.
And teachers hardly eever spoke out
about such things again, even though they knew that what this man had said was
They were silenced by
And even today, President Bush is
being heavily lobbied and hounded by hysterical feminist groups for his
pro-family stance. In the eyes of feminists anything that supports marriage
keeps women 'oppressed'. And one of their main arguments is that by supporting
marriage, women might end up having to endure the violence of their abusive
Putting this another way: Even
when a government tries today to do something that can only be described as
'wholesome' when it comes to families and children, these nasty vindictive women
want to frighten it off by screeching about domestic violence, demonising the
fathers, stirring up male hatred and accusing the pro-family politicians of
being closet supporters of wife abuse!
Goodness me; even the UK's right-wing 18-year long Tory
government under Mrs Thatcher and then John Major never dared to mention the problems associated
with, say, single-motherhood, so widespread, long term and vindictive was the
influence, in particular, of media feminists.
Even Mrs T was kept silent!
The second reason that the
importance of fathers has been so little mentioned (or researched) for so long is that dragoons of
intellectually-impoverished individuals found that they could do well within the
above-mentioned professions simply by propounding politically-correct views. Little else was
required of them. These
gullible people, so easily infected with the feminist hatred of men and so
indoctrinated with politically-correct 'group-speak' simply believed what
they were told. And any evidence before their very own eyes that contradicted
this, they clearly did not have the capacity to understand, let alone to
And they are still with us today.
This is why, for example, the UK Home Office can still actually
violence quite overtly through its obnoxious publicity campaigns and also through the funding of
demonstrably sexist man-hating feminist academic departments that push out phony and invalid 'research'
statistics with impunity, while, amazingly, nobody within the various Home Office
departments even 'notices' what harm they, themselves, are doing - and this, despite the
enormous associated societal problems that we have according to the Home Office's very own
The third reason is that there was found to be millions -
literally - of careers and of dollars to be had from demonising men (e.g. see AH's How would the Nation Survive without Child Abuse?)
regardless of what one felt about the ethics of doing so. (e.g. AH's
NSPCC SHATTERS CHILD
And, I repeat, these
still with us today.
"Fathers who are closely involved in their children's
upbringing have a positive impact on academic achievement, say
It's astonishing, isn't it?
Across the USA, Canada, Europe and Australia the
governments have, for decades, poured billions of dollars annually into departments of social studies, social services,
education, schools and various other children's organisations.
And yet, astonishingly, it is
only now that the negative effects of fatherlessness are being 'discovered' and
finally aired in the media!
How could it be that something
that must be so obvious to anyone with even a modicum of sense and experience of
the world actually be 'news'!?