Fathers no longer needed in the Unhinged Kingdom

Posted by karlmagnus on July 14, 2006, 12:31 PM | #

Provided they give only eugenically selected sperm and only to intelligent lesbians, I have no problem wiith this.

Posted by Mark Richardson on July 14, 2006, 11:38 PM | #

Karlmagnus, are you serious? This measure is a declaration by the powers that be that children don’t need their fathers. What kind of society would send this message to young men in order to placate a tiny number of lesbians?

This is one of those instances in which a heterosexual culture has to assert itself to protect its own functioning and the well-being of the majority.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 15, 2006, 12:11 AM | #

I have to say, I was going to reply to Karl Magnus this morning along the same lines as Mark has done, but was rushing somewhere and didn’t get around to it.  Karl, you’ve posted so many comments at MR.com beautifully illustrative of the importance of the father in the life of your own son (who is fondly known to MR regulars as “the young master").  You, obviously possessing such a keen personal sense of the importance of fatherhood and of the father’s role in the life of a child and of the father’s influence on that child—you can approve of a blatantly lesbian-serving intiative such as this?  I agree with Mark one-hundred percent.

Posted by karlmagnus on July 15, 2006, 01:02 AM | #

Yes, I was irritated by JJR’s assumption that as a bunch of Fascist pigs we would naturally object to this. 

Actually I think my stated assumptions of eugenic wholesomeness in the arrangement are infinitesimally probable, so in that case I’m against it.  Theoreticaly, if a very intelligent woman happened to be a lesbian, I would not object to her buying sperm from a suitably vetted bank and producing a probably superior kid.  In practice I agree that’s not how it would be in the vast majority of cases.

I do however think that kids can be brought up by one parent, provided that parent gives them enough care and attention.  The trouble in our current society is that too many potentially high quality kids come from 2 career families, and are brought up by illegal immigrant maids. If the wife works, the husband probably shouldn’t (or should do something like me, dozy freelance journo working primarily from home.)

Posted by Guessedworker on July 15, 2006, 07:02 AM | #

The inimitable and not at all dozy Fred Reed has a piece up on the education of boys which makes some obvious points about the nature and education of the unfair sex, and the benefit of male teachers.

Boys are churning wads of energy. They are physical and competitive. They want to climb things, test themselves, jump off of things, explore, drive fast, fight, behave like damn fools, and sack cities. In later years this energy may serve them well, but not yet. School is hellish for them, with its year after year of sitting, bored out of their skulls, while some drone babbles. It is worse for the bright, verging on child abuse. They hate it. I did.

Girls are more orderly, patient, accept rules with less resistance, and do their homework. They have better handwriting and cut pictures from magazines to paste into projects. They finish assignments on time. In general girls are easier to deal with, certainly for the female teachers who now are almost the only teachers.

Now, 1964 was very different from today. Families were intact. I do not remember a single kid whose parents had been divorced. There was therefore a man in the house. Adolescent boys are wild men. A man can control them. A divorced woman often has a hard time controlling daughters.

... Boys need someone who can control them until, in a few years, the internal controls are in place. Women can’t do it. Therefore we have police in the schools, and we drug boys into somnolence with amphetamines. Parents, instead of even trying to control their kids, will litigate.

Boys cease to be students and become problems, so teachers don’t like them.

Further, in the schools today we have feminization, feminization, feminization. Instead of treating girls like girls, and boys like boys, all are expected to be girls. It doesn’t work. Boys by their very nature like to roughhouse. They like contact sports. You don’t have to force them to play football. They are competitive. Women don’t understand this, and what they don’t understand, they outlaw. Today estrogenated school after estrogenated school bans dodge ball as too dangerous, outlaws tag (“They get too rough,” meaning too rough for Mrs. Teacher), and insists on “groups games led by a caring adult.”

It is hideous for boys. Everything they are, it isn’t. “Ohhhhh, let’s have a caring non-competitive game….” If he is really bright, with an IQ north of 150, he will decide that his teachers are idiots, which most of them are, and withdraw. There will be a price for this one day.

You want to end the “boy crisis”? Easy. Give boys male teachers who understand boys and care about them. Women do neither. Let them compete. It’s how they are. Encourage them to burn off energy in the gym. Reward achievement, not pretty projects. Turn them into men, not transvestites.

Well, he never holds back.  The disconnection between boys and the social expression of masculinity is a fine model for the conflict between liberalism and Nature.  A la Fred’s piece, the third series of ITV’s Bad Lad’s Army is about to hit the small screen, if it hasn’t already done so.

I fell into watching the first series because I could immediately see the redemptive nature of a 1950s-style Army conscripts life on the incompetent trash that had unwittingly signed up for the experience.  It was, in its way, most moving to see the survivors respond to the shocking, new demand in their lives for discipline, honour and pride.

The Army has always served as a substitute father for lost souls.  That’s a fine thing.  But it would be better for everybody if some aspects of the 1950’s still obtained (as Fred Reed says of 1964 in his article) and no father substitute was ever required.  All boys should grow to an adulthood of moralized masculinity.  As it is, liberalism eschews morality as a limit to free will and masculinity as a source of oppression.  The carnival of freedom for poofs and blacks goes on.

Posted by EC on June 06, 2007, 08:37 AM | #

“This measure is a declaration by the powers that be that children don’t need their fathers. What kind of society would send this message to young men in order to placate a tiny number of lesbians?” Mark Richardson

I don’t believe it possible that men will EVER lose their relevance in the family scheme, regardless of social or scientific experimentation with that most precious asset; life. 

The percentage of homosexuals of both genders, even at this time of broad acceptance remains small.  That’s the consolation.  The message to young men is that the best way to be relevant in their child’s life is to find a way to be there from an early age and to maintain the close connection throughout the child’s development.

Men should not fear the women’s equal rights in the workplace, nor should they waste unnecessary resources or energy proving that the female IQ is inferior to the male’s.  If IQ is superior in the white race, be satisfied with that.  After all, is a male child’s brilliance only from the father’s side?  Be reasonable.  And be smart…

Is it not preferrable for the child to have a truly superior mother in every regard; educated to her fullest capacity and knowledgeable in all fields, including health and nutrition so that she is able to pass on not only the best health possible but also to teach the child what is most useful right from the start?

As for being able to spend more time with his child, doesn’t it follow that by allowing women to have equal rights at better paying work, that men can afford to work less and share in the upbringing of their children?  I’d say it’s about time. 

Breastfeeding notwithstanding, name anything else that a woman can do for her child that a man cannot.  If he cares enough to, that is. 

That’s the message we send to our young men.