There is nothing in a child's life that can replace a father. This is something so staggeringly obvious that it seems a wonder what we should have to continually be repeating it, but here we are. The role of fathers has been under attack in the Western world for decades now, and this conflict just seems to be escalating.
Sure, some single parents have successfully raised good, productive kids. This also has happened throughout human history; even in times and in societies where divorce was uncommon or even unknown, it can't be helped that sometimes a spouse dies, leaving one parent to raise a child or children on their own. But this was by unfortunate happenstance, not by design.
Now, these days, the attempts to eliminate fathers are by design. And now, in the United Kingdom, it seems to be a matter of policy. In a column at the New English Review, author Janice Fiamengo has some startling news.
Reaction in North America has so far been muted to what is being hailed as a significant victory for anti-father groups in Britain.
As reported by The Guardian newspaper in almost giddily triumphant prose, “The family courts will no longer work on the presumption that having contact with both parents is in the best interests of a child.”
This may be a significant victory for anti-father groups, and, amazingly, there is such a thing as "anti-father groups." But it's a slap in the face of the human family structure, a structure that goes back thousands of years.
The details of this new policy are still be worked out, but nothing good will come of it.
Only time will tell how the new law, not yet formalized, will impact the family courts, where discrimination against fathers is already rampant. The government announcement is, at the very least, staggeringly symbolic of a new phase in the anti-father onslaught, with judges now to be directed, so it seems, to exclude fathers from their children’s lives in as many cases as the mothers wish. A simple accusation will suffice. The Guardian declares that,
“The move has been heralded as ‘groundbreaking’ by family lawyers and campaigners who have long argued that the ‘pro-contact culture’ in the family courts places the rights of abusive fathers over the safety and wellbeing of children.”
This flies in the face of not only thousands of years of human history - even in polygamous societies, fathers are ever-present throughout history - but it also contradicts human biology.
The basic family structure, a father, a mother, and children, is not just a matter of society. It's a matter of biology. Humans, as mammals, exhibit sexual dimorphism. This is a fact; I've written many times how men have innate advantages over women in strength, speed, and stamina, and this is because of sexual dimorphism. Now, here's the thing: Mammals that show a large degree of sexual dimorphism, like gorillas, are generally polygamous, when one male has a harem of many females. Mammals that show much less dimorphism, like wolves, tend to be monogamous.
On the grand spectrum of mammals, humans are actually closer to wolves than gorillas. Monogamy is more natural to us.
Read More: The Media Is Trying to Figure Out Why Men Aren't Okay, but the Answer Is Simple
Spending Time With My Kids, All I Can Think About Is How the Kirk Family Was Robbed
But the feminist agenda isn't interested in facts, or biology, or anything other than their ideology, which becomes more and more radical year by year.
This attempt to erase fathers is part of that increasingly radical ideology.
It gets worse: There is ample evidence to show that married men are, in fact, the least likely to abuse or mistreat a child. The most common demographic to abuse their children is single mothers, the very arrangement that these insane policies encourage.
The article does not admit the well-documented fact that mothers are the most frequent perpetrators of child abuse and child homicide (see, for example, p. 65, perpetrators of child fatalities). Neither does the article acknowledge that women do indeed lie about abuse , precisely as a means to sway custody outcomes in their favor. Moreover, women do alienate children from their fathers, often with the assistance of family court orders. Alienation is a recognized form of child abuse.
This is already happening in the United States. As author Janice Fiamengo points out from personal experience:
I know a Colorado man who lived for two years without hot water in his house because his spare money paid his lawyer and his (remarried) ex-wife so that he could be granted one overnight visit every second weekend with his two young daughters, whom he hadn’t seen unsupervised for five years. I knew an Ontario man, a collector of antique guns, who was ejected from his home and barred from re-entering (except for one half hour to gather belongings under police supervision) because his wife claimed gun-induced terror, despite none being operational. I knew a California man who committed suicide after he was unable to reconnect with his adult daughter, alienated through divorce. His most bitter memory had been being barred from the funeral of the grand-daughter he had never met.
These people, these radical feminists, father-hating shouters, will not quit. They will not back down. And their policies, their agendas, their ideology have as the goal to remove fathers from any role beyond that of sperm donor. And in time, advances in genetic engineering may make even that unnecessary.
This is how societies weaken and die.
