Boys Without Dads: Feminism's Collateral Damage

Article here. Excerpt:

'Scripted television does not reflect reality as it exists. Rather, in addition to dramatizing for entertainment, the creators often also intend to create a guide to what reality should be. Television programs tell us what is cool and what is not; they tell us what is desirable and what is not. A more precise way of saying this is that television programs often have political agendas.

One of the visions offered to us through contemporary shows is that single motherhood is cool. More than that, it is desirable, because it reinforces the feminist precept that women do not need men and are better off without them. Unmarried mothers and single motherhood are normalized, even encouraged. Many TV heroines are now single mothers:
So almost one-third of American children do not live with a mother and father -- and of those, most live with their mothers.'

Like1 Dislike0


There's a common thread to the various liberal isms these days. One thing they all have in common is they set to break up/split up social cohesion. Identityism tries this with its gender/race/sexuality/etc. groups-making and class struggling. Socialism is about setting those with vs. those with less. Feminism is about a few things, one of which is setting women vs. men. All of these isms has an outcome in common: far fewer kids. After all, a man and woman must be happy with each other to raise happy well-adjusted kids together. Feminism tells women men are just plain bad. Avoid them. If you have a kid, do it alone. Socialism disseminates wealth. Low-wealth populations can't readily afford larger numbers of kids or if they have them, they will be raised in poverty. Most first world people would rather forego kids than live in poverty much less raise kids in poverty. Naturally, identityism gives people a ready way to see others unlike them as being at odds with their interests. Hard to have kids with one's class enemy now isn't it?

The net result is fewer kids no matter what the cost. A happy well-adjusted boy may well have aspirations as an adult to become a dad. However an unhappy not well-adjusted boy is likely to not aspire to much of anything once he is an adult. An easy way to make that happen is take dad away from him.

It all adds up. The ZPG people merged with feminists in the 1970s when their message fell flat. They didn't go away. They just assumed a new form, or rather, joined forces. It's a formula; the more options women have, the less likely they are to want to have kids. This means that societies that restrict women's options naturally produce more kids. This isn't just, right, or fair. It is however the outcome.

I am not suggesting we curb women's opportunities to do anything as a consequence. In fact, I am down with the ZPG agenda. I am down with NPG to be honest: Negative Population Growth. As I have said before, humans should not number more than 100 million people in order to ease the burden on the planet. To do this, we must die off by the billions.

There are ways though of discouraging ppl from having kids that do not include making women hate men nor making men so annoyed with women and their learned misandry that we prefer to fuck androids much less drink coffee with them. Further, destroying the economy by implementing socialism isn't needed either. The goals of feminism include a number of things but NPG is def a big one. One can agree with the goal but disagree with the means being pursued.

Like0 Dislike0

Children have an inalienable right to know both their biological parents. The numbers of boys and girls growing up not knowing their fathers is the fact underlying one of the largest and most ignored crises in our communities.

Fathers are not simply substituted by any other person. Feminists insist that fathers are toxic. Others insist that fathers are so unimportant that anyone can step into their shoes (even family pets) and provide the same relationship. But the evidence in less subjective and bias research is clear. Fatherlessness is a major trauma in children's lives.

Boys in particular are lost, when growing up in environments where their experiences of maleness are derived from femsplained caricatures of toxic masculinity with all positive traits described as feminine. Even in environments where maleness is not described as toxic, the experience of living with a father, the lived masculinity of a parent, is not interchangeable with extended family members, occassional male dinner guests, male teachers or sports coaches.

Feminism has liberated women from their traditional societal roles (although the roles are still there), but has done so with complete contempt for the roles played by males in the family and child development. It's the contempt of males, the loud, unrelenting and unrepentent misandry of feminism, that has taken liberated women and their sons, and trodden them into the mud. Feminist mothers have no idea how to raise the boys they love, because they want so badly to hate them.

Like2 Dislike0