The First Step Towards Parental Equality? Perhaps

From today’s Irish Times


Court says children should be factor in father’s rent allowance

Fiona Gartland

Last Updated: Friday, October 31, 2014, 00:48

A High Court ruling that the Department of Social Protection must reconsider a decision to grant only single person’s rent allowance to a separated father of four could have significant implications for parents in similar situations. (emphasis added)

In a ruling delivered yesterday, Ms Justice Marie Baker found the department’s decision-making process when assessing the man’s application was flawed.

Its deciding officer applied the wrong legal test by assessing only the father’s accommodation needs without having any regard to the complexity of his family relationships,“the accommodation needs of the children when they are visiting their father” and the “intrinsic interconnectedness” of those needs with those of their father.”

(emphasis added)


Let me back track a little here, before we get into talking about the implications of this decision for Irish fathers. I wrote about this case back in May 2014. The short version is this. This man and his wife are separated, he has four children. He left the family home to relocate to Dublin in search of work. While he was unemployed he made his application for Rent Supplement, a state subsidy that allows people to pay for accommodation when they unable to do so out of their own resources. He also applied to his local housing authority, and was subsequently assessed and put on what is called the housing list.

Bear with me.

We now have two separate state bodies involved, the local authority deemed this man eligible for housing and assessed his housing need as being that of a parent with four children, which is what he is.

The Department of Social Protection on the other hand refused to acknowledge this and declared him to be a single person and therefore deemed him to be only eligible for a very much reduced rate of Rent Supplement – the rate of Rent Supplement for a single person in Dublin will allow you to rent a shed in somebody’s back garden, if you’re lucky.

While the local housing authority had deemed this man eligible for housing suitable for a parent with four children, the fact is that there is no local authority housing either available or being built, therefore he has no other option but to apply for Rent Supplement in order to provide suitable accommodation for himself and his four children.

The article I wrote back in May was based on this article in the Irish Independant by Tim Healy.

Mr. Heeley’s article echoes with almost unconscious contempt at the notion that this man should be accommodated on the State’s dime and referred to his children “visiting him” and this is reflected in the original decision by the Department of Social Protection’s dismissal of this man as a parent, and hinges on one factor and one factor only.

He was and is a father, and as such is deemed to be of less worth – as a parent.

Granted this is also a money saving exercise, after all, we are in the middle of a recession and who cares anyway if fathers who are unable to afford accommodation from their own resources are denied this State subsidy?

Fathers aren’t real parents – are they?

How do I know that Mr. Healy can barely disguise his contempt for this man? Look at the title of the article he wrote – look at how he characterises this man’s relationship to his children. His children “visit him”

In effect he is echoing the same disregard and dismissal for this man’s status as a parent that the Department of Social Protection did when they dismissed his application for Rent Supplement as a parent of four children, and insisted on him being categorised as “single”

“Single” is a particular way of describing someone – as in – not married – yet – the vast majority of “single” parents availing themselves of the One Parent Allowance are female and unmarried – Single – but are without question accepted as parents, and eligible for any and all State supports.

The default narrative of parenting that has been assiduously manufactured and nurtured by feminism, has been embraced by huge numbers of women, and has embedded itself into the cultural consciousness of most western states is that, fathers are irrelevant if not downright suspect, unnecessary to a child’s wellbeing and can be easily brushed aside and dismissed in favour of the real parents – mothers.

Ms Justice Marie Baker has now just thrown a spanner into the works; she has acknowledged the importance of fathers, as parents, to their children:


“Its deciding officer applied the wrong legal test by assessing only the father’s accommodation needs without having any regard to the complexity of his family relationships,“the accommodation needs of the children when they are visiting their father” and the “intrinsic interconnectedness” of those needs with those of their father.” (emphasis added)


But more tellingly she has punctured a concept that has bedevilled and exerted a punitive and malign influence on fathers who have found themselves caught up in family courts – that concept? The “primary carer’ one – where, to put it crudely, possession is nine tenths of the law, and the value of parenting is measured in first, the sex of the parent, and secondly in the hours/days/months that a child is in the “custody” of or if you prefer possession of that “primary carer”:


“She found given the joint custody arrangements the children could not be viewed as living primarily with one parent, or having one “primary” carer, as the department’s deciding officer had found. The needs of the children were more complex, had been assessed by their parents as involving joint custody, and could not be met in one location only, she said.” (emphasis added)


The judgement itself is not available yet, but before fathers rights activists get carried away, one point should be made. This judgement speaks to this man’s legal status, in effect it acknowledges his status as a parent but does not direct the Department of Social Protection to award this man Rent Supplement in any particular amount. The decision is much more subtle. What this decision does is reject the underlying assumptions about who is or isn’t a parent, and what criteria  are used to make that decision.

Those criteria are informed by even more underlying cultural artefacts, the most significant one being that fathers are only relevant in a subsidiary and secondary category, and cease to become parents officially unless there is a no “primary carer’ (a mother). What is significant also is that in applying the “best interests of the child” criteria in this way involves an acknowledgement that having their father in their lives is in the best interests of these children.

Rejecting the “primary carer” concept is a significant legal point. It is something to build on, a starting point, if you will, to reframe the parameters through which decisions are reached in custody disputes. Once you reject this notion that there is a primary or superior parent and a secondary or subsidiary parent, and embrace the concept that both parents are equally necessary and equally important in the lives of their children, then the emphasis shifts (hopefully) onto accommodating those children’s needs, rather than being swayed by an emphasis on the needs of one parent over another. Let us hope so.

Perhaps one of the most important aspect of this particular decision, not just for this father, but hopefully for all fathers in a wider context is that:

He is a parent in his own right. Legally. That is what this decision directs a state body to acknowledge, officially.

His solicitor Moya de Paor made these comments:

“This has been very distressing for him and for his children, who have also been denied their right to the care and support of their father,” she said.

“The judgment raises significant issues in relation to fathers’ rights as custodians of their children and, in particular, children’s rights to the care and support of their father.”


So, what could the wider implications be?

Well, try this on for size, the justification used for the payment of “maintenance” or child support from one parent (usually the father) to the other parent (usually the mother) is invariably the concept of the parent receiving that payment as the “primary carer”

If, one is lucky enough to be within a joint custody arrangement, then this judgement quite clearly rejects that concept and levels the playing field, so to speak, ergo – what justification is there now for awarding excessive unvouched payments, not related to specific child care/raising costs, when both parents have been deemed to be of equal status? Parentally speaking, that is.


Just a thought. 🙂

I will post the text of the judgement, if and when it becomes available.


Having said that because this case involves the Department of Social Protection and how it applies its criteria for payments two other issues arise.

In order to qualify for One Parent Family Payment one must:

have the main care and charge of at least one child who is residing with them

for person applying for One-Parent Family Payment after 1 January 2009, the person applying for One-Parent Family Payment must be a ‘qualified parent’. A ‘qualified parent’ means a widow, a widower, surviving civil partner, a separated spouse, a separated civil partner, an unmarried person, or a person whose spouse/civil partner has been committed in custody to a prison or place of detention for not less than 6 months, who is a parent, step-parent, adoptive parent or legal guardian of at least 1 qualified child, who normally resides with that person. (Section 13 of the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2008 refers.”

This is the “primary carer” condition that Ms Justice Marie Baker just shot out of the water by rejecting this concept.

The second issue is this:


For a person to qualify as a separated or divorced person or a person whose civil partnership has been dissolved s/he must:

have been living apart from his/her spouse/civil partner for at least 3 months

have made and continue to make appropriate efforts to get maintenance from his/her spouse/civil partner where civil partner is the parent of the child/ren

(See Appendix 1 for what constitutes “efforts”)

See ” Liability to Maintain Family” guideline for more general information.



A person who is unmarried will be required to make efforts to seek maintenance in respect of the child/ren from the other parent of the child/ren. These efforts need not be made at the initial claim stage but continued entitlement to One-Parent Family Payment is conditional on efforts being made to seek maintenance from the other parent of the child/ren. This requirement is applicable to new claims received in the Department on or after 1 May 1997.

(See Appendix 2 for what constitutes “efforts”)


A person who claims One-Parent Family Payment is required to seek maintenance from her/his spouse /civil partner where civil partner is the parent of the child/ren or the other parent of the child. Maintenance payments are assessed as means. Vouched housing costs of up to €95.23 per week (rent or mortgage) may be offset against maintenance payments with half the balance of maintenance being assessed as means in establishing the rate of One-Parent Family Payment due.


This could become a huge problem, and it all hinges around this issue of being the “primary carer” particularly if the parents have been or are still legally married to one another. This judgement has in effect nullified the concept that one parent is the primary parent and ergo is entitled to be paid by the other parent for “taking care of” their children. Put rather simplistically, if both parents are deemed to have equal legal standing – then who claims maintenance from whom?

If you cannot claim maintenance, then you cannot qualify for OPFP, if you, like this man can prove that you are equally parenting your child/ren then you cannot fulfil the “primary carer” condition, and again under the current rules, cannot qualify for OPFP.


Complicated – isn’t it? Yet at the same time incredible simple.


What this judgement has the potential to do is rip to useless shreds the notion that women own their children by default automatically, and men pay.

Having said that, this particular case has no custody issues attaching to it, by all accounts, both the parents here are supportive of one another, but what it has done is expose a weakness in how parenting is seen officially, having relied on that “primary carer” concept to marginalise fathers and make them merely those who pay, or are pursued through the courts for payments to be made to the “primary carer”


Ms Justice Baker has rejected the concept of “primary carer” in a non family law case, concentrating solely on the legal status of this man as an equal parent, and more importantly directed this judgement at a State body – the Department of Social Protection – which insists on one parent pursuing the other parent for “maintenance” and insists on an archaic and discriminatory concept “primary carer” in order that a person can qualify for a particular State payment.But, it also impacts on how other State payments are administered, in particular OPFP.


This is going to be interesting – and already I can hear feminists and “womens rights” advocates gnashing their teeth and pulling their hair out while they try to untangle this and come up with a counter argument that maintains the status quo.


Toxic Mothers.


Mike Buchanan over at J4MB posted a link to this article in the Daily Mail online, the headline is an attention grabber.

 Mums who cut fathers out after separation: One in three say Dad should not have say in their child’s upbringing

” Study found 32% mothers feel they can better handle problems alone.  Comes as deepening concern millions of children don’t have male role model.  85% of fathers would prefer to make decisions as a unit, research finds

 “One in three separated mothers think their children’s fathers should have no say in their upbringing, according to a report yesterday.

It found that 32 per cent of separated mothers thought that they alone had the right to make decisions about their children’s future.

 The high proportion found by a survey implies that more than one in 10 of all the families in the country include mothers who do not want the fathers of their children to have a say over the future of their children.”

The original YouGov survey that RELATE based theirs on is here.

What is revealing though are the comments, and for this article there were, at the last count when I checked, 124 comments. The ensuing discussion about the results of this survey generated some interesting comments, on two levels.

First, the overwhelming support for equal parenting, from both male and female posters, or at least as far as I can tell with regard to sex – and secondly, the distinct lack of support for that deeply held entrenched belief that women own their children, and that fathers should be relegated to visitors, or barely tolerated back-up babysitters to the primary parent – the mother.

There were a few dyed in the wool “mother knows best” types and a few who trotted out the lame – “but of course fathers should have an equal say except in the case of abuse or violence”

Let’s just knock that one on the head straight away – it is overwhelmingly MOTHERS who abuse their children, neglect their children, and in the context of relationships, violence is a two way street.

If we are going to have “conditions” then those conditions apply EQUALLY to mothers and fathers, with absolutely no assumption that mothers are the “primary care givers”

Further, if there are issues of violence in parental relationships then it is the perpetrator – male or female who gets the sanctions and the OTHER parent who “gets the kids” as in the recent judgement by Mrs Justice Parker ruled – the FATHER was awarded primary custody of the children and the violent abusive mother got supervised access.

 Having said that, concepts of custody and access or contact have no legitimate place in the realm of parenting, the idea that one parent allows the other parent to BE a parent is vile, it is mendacious and it needs to GO.

The same with this concept of child support – where one parent pays the other parent – if we are talking about two adults, then they are responsible for supporting themselves in their own separate homes, if that is what they want.  Child specific expenses are also a separate issue – and depend on what works out best for the parties involved and the child expenses should be borne equally by both parents.

In the case of a family home – by agreement – if whoever wants to live in it then YOU pay the mortgage – if you can’t afford it then you sell it, pay off the mortgage and divide any excess equally between you.

Alternatively, if selling is not an option then, try this on for size.

One of the things I think might work is that in order to prevent children from being moved around, that the children remain in the house, their family home, and the parents take turns staying with them, in the family home – you rent a small place, or whatever you can afford between you, for when it is the others parents turn with the children.

Now, before all you delicate fragile women get your knickers in a knot – why not? So what if it’s “inconvenient” for YOU – this is about what is best for your mutual children – not YOU.

You’re ADULTS – work it out!

How about this?

Monday to Wednesday  – Mother stays in house with children.

Thursday to Saturday – Father stays in house with children.

Sunday – family day – grit your bloody teeth – paste a smile on your face – this is about what is best FOR YOUR CHILDREN.

Oh and by the way – as the primary reason for this arrangement is for YOUR children – you DON’T GET TO MOVE YOUR LATEST BOYFRIEND or girlfriend in – that’s what your one bed flat is for – grown up time.

Anyhoo – on to the comments on this article, lets start with the top rated ones. The first is this one.

Catherine, Edinburgh, 9 hours ago

I presume that this 30% of mothers will on principle refuse maintenance from their ex husbands too?

807 positive – 61 negative”

This was the highest rated comment and it looks like it was by a female person – a woman – I like Catherine’s style, it’s short, sweet and to the point and it got 807 positives to 61 negatives, I believe we can rightly describe that as an overwhelming amount of support?

Now Catherine got a few replies, the first one, also by a female, missed the point by a country mile and got a majority of negative responses, because SilverLady here assumes that mothers are the “primary” parents – bit of a fail there SilverLady.

SilverLady, SilverCity, 7 hours ago

Financial contribution to one’s child’s upbringing is an obligation to the child, not to the mother!

82 negative – 51 positive”

The next reply to Catherine’s comment was this one.

of course, theothersideofnowhere, Australia, 6 hours ago

no but if the father refuses to contribute how about he doesn’t get a say in how the children get brought up (NOT that he doesn’t get to see them, that’s not relevant to whether he contributes financially or not) but if he’s not supporting them financially why should he get a say in the decisions on how the money is spent? its a lose lose situation unfortunately

14 negative – 43 positive

This is a bit confused and hard to really get what this commentator is saying – he/she seems to be making the point that financial contributions to child upkeep should have nothing to do with whether a father “gets to see” his children or not and if he isn’t then, the rest of the comment is rather incomprehensible?

But the point is valid with regard to tying payment with being allowed to see your own children!

The highest negatively rated comments were equally interesting, though this first one I find personally less of a problem than some of the more outright – “women own their children” ones. Here it is.

Just call me queen., Over the hill and far away, Monaco, 7 hours ago

I’m in a tricky situation at the moment. I have a toddler son with a man who lives thousands of miles away from me. He loves us very much, but I’m not sure about my feelings anymore for him. I love him , but no longer romantically. I want to make sure that my son and his father remain in close contact ,but does that mean sacrificing my own happiness? I am sure that separation would mean hotels costs. He would be happy to pay for plane tickets still, but could not afford the added hotel costs, and neither can I . So I’m stuck right now 😦

38 negative – 7 positive”

What I see here is innate selfishness and more than a touch of self absorption – “but does that mean sacrificing my own happiness?” Duh!  Well yes it does – you waived your right to put YOUR “needs” first when you had that child – my impulse is to say to silly twat – grow up!

This next wretch literally screams Parental Alienation.

Martha, Allotment, United Kingdom, 6 hours ago

Children aren’t stupid, our young teenage son often tells his dad what we do is no concern of his anymore. More grown up then his dad.

32 negative – 21 positive”

As does this one – because we all know what women do to “gain custody”

janet c, London, 6 hours ago

the decisions should be made by whichever parent gains custody as they have to manage the child’s upbringing.

31 negative – 14 positive”

Even in this brief comment you can see exactly the way this wretch thinks – MY children, I will WIN, this is battle for possession.

One the things that emerges from the article is that RELATE seem surprised at the percentage of women who outright admitted that in a nutshell – the fathers of their children were unnecessary – for their children.

“Chief Executive Ruth Sutherland said: ‘The one thing everyone can be sure of is that it’s the wellbeing of children which is of paramount importance here – so finding ways to work together as parents in the best interests of our children is vital.’”

Ah yes, let’s just all sit down and have a nice cup of tea and chat about what to do about this “silly old separation business”!

What planet have these people been living on for the last 60 years? Seriously?

They’re are in the “relationship” business and THIS is a bit of a surprise to them? Toxic, vicious alienating mothers?  Fathers being excised from the lives of their children? Or do only nice people go to RELATE to separate in a nice civilised manner?

What is clear from the comments is that rising from the general public – if Daily Mail commentators can BE called the general public – is a backlash against  these toxic, vicious alienating mothers and their era is finally, hopefully starting to draw to a close.

Will they give up without a fight? Doubt it.  There will always be bitches and wretches, there will always be gyncentrism embedded in some women, but the Men’s Human Rights Movement exists to dismantle every last legal, social and political support that gives these women permission to vent their gynocentrism without sanction.

We cannot of course forget about the feminists, but feminism is now such a toxic brand in its own right – that every time one of these twats opens her, and in some cases his mouth – it is usually just to change feet.

Long may that continue.



Mommy Dearest


There is a mythology surrounding motherhood, it is deeply embedded into our cultural psyche, it affects every aspect of our society from law to politics to entertainment and it anchors nearly all conversations, both public and private regarding women and women’s rights, because almost automatically, particularly in public discourse about women it is always “women and children” as two inseparable and interwoven entities, almost one entity.

And this dual entity is spoken of with reverence, with indulgence, with almost religious zeal.  Strangely feminists have a conflicted history with motherhood, they claim to be the voice of women and for women, yet motherhood is an intrinsic part of being female, they claim to be for a woman’s right “to choose” anything,  yet have vilified and sought to dismantle both marriage and family as the building blocks of stable societies. They idealise single mothers as brave heroines overcoming all obstacles to emerge as the epitome of “good parenting” in spite of all evidence to the contrary.

Underpinning all this overt and covert social engineering to remake society into the image of a feminist utopia lies a raging virulent hatred of all things male. The radical feminist founders of modern feminism were determined to wipe men off the face of the planet, if not totally then in sufficient numbers to allow these hapless remaining male souls to service this feminist utopia.

Which brings me to this:

Arizona couple ‘held three daughters captive’ in home; 28 November 2013.

Police in Arizona say three sisters were held captive in filthy conditions for up to two years by their mother and stepfather in the city of Tucson.

Investigators say two of the girls, aged 12 and 13, escaped and alerted a neighbour after their stepfather tried to attack them with a knife.

Officers then found a 17-year-old locked in her bedroom.

The girls were malnourished and dirty and told the police they had not taken a bath in up to six months.

“They were kept in filthy living conditions separately and told patrol officers that they had not seen each other in almost two years,” Tucson police captain Mike Gilooly told reporters.

This is becoming depressingly commonplace, reports of children being abused, neglected and in some cases murdered by their mothers, sometimes in conjunction with live-in boyfriends and sometimes with the fathers of their children.  What all these cases of child abuse and neglect tend to have in common is a single mother.

From: The Importance of Fathers in the Healthy Development of Children; Author(s): Office on Child Abuse and Neglect, U.S. Children’s Bureau Rosenberg, Jeffrey., Wilcox, W. Bradford. Year Published: 2006

 “Federal data derived from CPS reports in 2003 indicate that in 18.8 percent of the substantiated cases, fathers were the sole perpetrators of maltreatment; in 16.9 percent of the cases, the fathers and the mothers were perpetrators; and in 1.1 percent of the cases, the father acted with someone else to abuse or neglect his child. Mothers were the sole perpetrators in 40.8 percent of the cases and acted with someone besides the father in 6.3 percent of the cases.31 This means that fathers were involved in 36.8 percent of child maltreatment cases and that mothers were involved in 64 percent of child maltreatment cases….

Mothers are almost twice as likely to be directly involved in child maltreatment as fathers. Mothers are more likely to abuse or neglect their children than fathers because they bear a larger share of parenting responsibilities in two-parent families and because a large percentage of families today are headed by mothers. In some communities, they are the majority.33 Perpetrator patterns differ, however, by type of maltreatment. Mothers are not more likely to be the perpetrator when it comes to sexual abuse; fathers are more likely to be reported for this crime.34”

I left out a part between these two paragraphs, because it illustrates something pertinent, the almost kneejerk reaction to excuse, explain or justify the maltreatment of children by their mothers, here it is now:

Additionally, more than one-half of the male perpetrators were biological fathers, and, although recidivism rates were low, biological fathers were more likely to be perpetrators of maltreatment again than were most other male perpetrators. This may be due in part to the lack of permanence between a mother and her boyfriend or that the perpetrator may be excluded from the household before recidivism can occur.32

Mothers are almost twice as likely to be directly involved in child maltreatment as fathers. Mothers are more likely to abuse or neglect their children than fathers because they bear a larger share of parenting responsibilities in two-parent families and because a large percentage of families today are headed by mothers. In some communities, they are the majority.33 Perpetrator patterns differ, however, by type of maltreatment.

I find it slightly nauseating to see the words “parental responsibility” and “more likely to abuse or neglect their children” in the same sentence. In fact it is this attitude, this unwillingness to call a spade a spade and say in black and white – single mothers make lousy parents.

Single mothers make lousy choices in “boyfriends” single mothers are the single greatest danger to the welfare of children bar none. The fact that they ARE single mothers is invariably down to their own CHOICES.

Alright, before all sorts of wailing and self righteous indignation starts coming my way, are ALL single mothers lousy parents? Not necessarily, are ALL single mothers the greatest danger to the welfare of their children, again, not necessarily. But, statistically the overwhelming majority of those women who “choose” to bear and parent children alone are selfish, self-serving social parasites.

The feminist utopia that those original nutjobs of feminism 20th century style dreamed of? The mission to destroy marriage, destroy families and impose this feminist ideal upon the world has come to pass. Except for one little detail.  This utopia is a society in chaos, a society in disarray, a society that has seen the rise of suicide in young men, the rise of children being abused and neglected, the rise of dysfunctional “families” headed by dysfunctional single mothers.

The question I asked myself some time ago was why? Why would these bitter twisted harpies have set in motion the events that led to this chaos?  The answer rather strangely came from an unusual source, not one I would have normally given much credence to.

One path which leads to Radical Feminism begins with the grandmother. The grandmother of a radical feminist is frequently married to a man who is an inadequate father. The grandmother may have had a positive relationship with her father and tolerate a certain level of misbehavior from her husband. She fails, however, to see the effect her example has on her daughter…….

……This daughter of a damaged daughter has been betrayed by both parents. Her father, who might — had he had a strong wife who had been able to motivate him and draw out his potential virtue — been an adequate father, betrays the daughter through abuse, but the mother also betrays the daughter by not protecting her and by fueling her resentment toward her father.

As the daughter of a damaged daughter grows up, at some point she rejects her mother as a model and mother’s passive/aggressive behavior, and decides to become aggressive, but she holds on to the deep seated bitterness and resentment. Voila! We have a Radical Feminist.

 From: Radical feminism as a psychological disorder…by Dale O’Leary

 Now I did check out Dale O’Leary and she is decidedly odd, a fervent catholic and most definitely with some strange views, but has some interesting things to say about feminism.

Her contention that radical feminists are the products of dysfunctional families resonates, when one considers the histories of some of the leading radical voices that shaped and informed the direction of modern feminism.

Take Robin Morgan for example, the product of an affair between her mother and a married man, who when she finally learns the truth and seeks him out, rejects her.  Or Shulamith Firestone, another product of a family headed by an overbearing father, Kate Millet, Betty Friedan, Mary Daly, Adrienne Rich and so many more, all have something in common. They are products of some dysfunctional families, but more importantly had hostile and perhaps adversarial relationships with their fathers and in some cases their mothers.

All of them are bound together by one overriding theme, hatred of and for men, even when it appears they had some positive experiences with men. Regardless of whatever political and cultural issues they allegedly sought to address, their actions were all fuelled by barely disguised hatred.  No other “political” movement(s) other than nazism, communism and fascism has as a core belief, a hatred of “the other” in the case of feminism “the other” is men. All men.

  What these women did was harness their rage, fine tune their own personal issues and reframe them into a poisonous ideology that they disseminated and presented as insights into the human condition. They gave a platform for other dysfunctional wretches to hijack the cultural and sociological narrative and impose their vindictive worldview into the zeitgeist.  Petty spiteful resentments became “issues” traditional family values became “oppressive” unintentional but well meaning protective behaviours became “patriarchy” and feminism 20th century was born, or rather was created from the fevered and over active imaginations of some seriously disturbed and dysfunctional harpies.

We now have reached the point where like a grain of sand in an oyster acquiring layers and layers of covering, feminism has acquired layers and layers of pseudo scholarship, academic gobbledegook and a positive forest of “writings” “studies” and feminist “research” designed to obscure the original poisonous seed planted into the consciousness of the western world like a grain of sand invades an oyster.  But unlike an oyster, the end result is not a pearl, not a precious and valuable jewel, it is a carbuncle, a festering boil comprised of hatred, vindictiveness, spite, lies, calumny and poison. It needs to be lanced.

What has all this to do with motherhood? Everything and nothing, the news story I linked to is but one example of the product of 50 years of feminist poison, the goal of feminism has been to infect women with this poison, and women are the ones who not only give birth to the next generation but invariably act as the major primary influence on young children. The counterbalancing of fathers, the steadying and valuable influence of fathers in the lives of their children has been rejected, has been deliberately removed over the last 50 years by the toxic influence of feminism on governments, in education, in every area of our culture.

Because rather than getting some bloody therapy for their “issues” those original founding harpies of modern feminism decided to spew their poison out into the world. The saddest and most heartbreaking aspect of all this? The world listened, men listened, women listened, politicians listened to this crap, and now here we are.  Look around you, look at the legacy of feminism.  It stinks.

I will leave you with an article written by the daughter of an “iconic” feminist Alice Walker, the author of The Color Purple. Her daughter Rebecca Walker had this to say:

Feminism has betrayed an entire generation of women into childlessness. It is devastating.

But far from taking responsibility for any of this, the leaders of the women’s movement close ranks against anyone who dares to question them – as I have learned to my cost. I don’t want to hurt my mother, but I cannot stay silent. I believe feminism is an experiment, and all experiments need to be assessed on their results. Then, when you see huge mistakes have been paid, you need to make alterations.

I hope that my mother and I will be reconciled one day. Tenzin deserves to have a grandmother. But I am just so relieved that my viewpoint is no longer so utterly coloured by my mother’s.

I am my own woman and I have discovered what really matters – a happy family.

From: How my mother’s fanatical views tore us apart By Rebecca Walker.