As my friend and colleague Ward Clark wrote recently, writer Mark Bulgutch at The Star, decided to write an entire piece about Father's Day, stating that it should really be a celebration of mom, and that we're the "least important character in the delivery room": 

Father’s Day is set aside so that children can thank Dad. That is completely unnecessary. I am confident my children appreciate my role in their upbringing, and they need no special day on the calendar to let me know that.

Mother’s Day is also a child-parent thing. So when is a man supposed to make it a priority to thank the woman who birthed his children? How about Father’s Day?

If the world was a perfect place, a man might show gratitude every day. The world is not a perfect place. So on Father’s Day, when all the attention falls on perhaps the least important character in the delivery room, it seems to me that a smart father would insist on recognizing the blinding truth: the woman who made him a father is the real hero of the story.

Read: Oh, for Crying Out Loud, Can't We Fathers Just Have One Day?

Bold? Hardly. This is just a copy/paste idea handed down through neo-feminist commentator circles for years now. Bulgutch will likely get his pats on the back from his fellow "journalists" for taking such a high-minded and progressive stance about men, that is neither high-minded nor progressive when you look at the minimization of the role of fathers in society. 

This is neo-feminist fan-fiction. Something they write around Father's Day to scratch that bigoted itch that comes from watching people actually appreciate the male of the species in any capacity. 

But there are hard facts they don't want to face about the male of the species, and especially fathers. 

Boys from fatherless homes are twice as likely to experience idleness by their late 20s, and likely to have been jailed by age 30. A whopping 80 percent of incarcerated youths come from fatherless homes and are six times more likely to engage in criminal behaviors, as well as 11 times more likely to commit violent crimes, including sexual assault. 

Fatherless children are twice as likely to drop out of high school and have the lowest school achievement rate. 

The argument from the left is that a lot of these facts that exhibit themselves as patterns, or correlational, but if I shot eight different people from different nations, ethnic groups, and wealth classes in the head, you wouldn't say that the gun's involvement in their death was correlation. The fact is, educational failure and fatherlessness go hand in hand, and a lack of education is a high predictor of criminality, be it drug use or assault cases. 

Now, if I were a group of people who wanted to fundamentally reshape America and destabilize the system it runs on, getting fathers out of the way would be a priority. 

I would work very hard to spread the idea that fathers aren't just not necessary — they can be detrimental. I would encourage society to move away from celebrating fatherhood. I would belittle it as useless and relegate fathers to the role of "babysitter." I would mock them in media and express outrage at companies for celebrating father-centric events. 

At the state and federal level, I'd reward fatherlessness. I would effectively offer money to women who had more and more children in fatherless homes. Then I'd push the idea that the children who went awry due to a lack of patriarchal influence were victims and that the crimes they committed were not their fault, creating victimhood and entitlement, a volatile mixture. 

The way I see it, there are two kinds of people who think fathers are not necessary, or even stupid. 

There are the neo-feminists who think that anything related to males is inherently evil and is a net negative on society, thanks to a mix of propaganda from big stage sources and bad experiences (usually) brought on by their own bad decision-making and pursuit of the wrong kind of men. Men can also get mixed up in this due to falling victim to ideological subversion... or they simply think saying this kind of thing will get them laid. 

But then there are the others who know that fathers are important to a stable society and want to encourage that society's separation from fatherhood. Men are only useful for two reasons to them. They're sperm donors to help bring forth the new generation of destabilizers, and the fault of women's oppression and woes the rest of the time.

I've yet to find an in-between here. Even the ignorant eventually learn, and when they do, they adjust appropriately. This leaves the idiots who continue to believe the negatives of fatherhood because of their bigotry towards men, and those who are smarter and know that fathers are a massive stabilizing factor for society, especially to children, and hate them for that.