logo for the website of Fathers for Life
Fatherlessness, the lack of natural fathers in children's lives
| Home | In The News | Our Blog | Contact Us | RSS button | Share


Fathers for Life Site-Search

2013 04 15: Symantec (makers and distributors of Norton Antivirus) and O2 now filter/block the website of Fathers for Life and *BOTH* of its affiliated blogs. Click for details.


 
 Site Map (very large file)
 Table of Contents
 Activism
 Children—Our most valued assets?
 Educating Our Children for the Global Gynarchia
 Child Support
 Civil Rights & Social Issues
 Families
 Family Law
 Destruction of Families
 Fatherhood
 Fatherlessness
 Divorce Issues
 Domestic Violence
 Feminism
 Gay Issues
 Hate, Hoaxes and Propaganda
 Health
 Help Lines for Men
 History
 Humour
 Law, Justice and The Judiciary
 Mail to F4L
 Men's Issues
 Suicide
 The Politics of "Sex"
 Our Most Popular Pages
 Email List
 Links
 References - Bibliography

You are visitor

since June 19, 2001

Be notified of
page updates
it's private
powered by
ChangeDetection

BADGE
 of
RECOGNITION

censored-stamp

Yes, the website for Fathers for Life and its affiliated blog are being slandered and censored. (Click for Details)

If you are a fathers-rights or pro-family activist, then it is quite likely that your website or blog is being, slandered and censored, too. (Click to check that out)

 
 
 
 

A message to my daughters, on Fathers Day 2001


Dear Daughters,

Thank you for your Fathers Day- and birthday messages.

I hope that everything is all right with all of you, your children and your husbands. I hope also your children and the children that your daughters and sons may have will have fathers in their lives, and that your sons may be allowed to become and remain fathers — for as long as your children and grandchildren live.

Maybe your children can benefit from the small collection of articles I present in this message and from my introduction to it. It would be great if you were to forward this message to your friends.

I don't know whether all of the parts of the "history of Fathers Day" are true. However, it is a fact that although fatherhood was throughout history an important part of social values and protected by law — but no longer now, thanks to the feminists — it didn't receive official recognition in the US to the extent that it became celebrated until Fathers Day was declared in 1966 to be a special day of celebration, at the same time that feminists declared open war on fatherhood. For all intents and purposes feminists now are, or at least control, our governments. There is no room for fatherhood in the feminist ideology.

Fathers Day was always a part of my life and that of all of my friends and relatives my age, and so was being a father. At the time people my age were growing up, there were only two major career paths for men. One was being a bachelor, a somewhat disrespected social position. The other was to become a father legally and through marriage, a somewhat more desirable status in life and society. Fatherhood was considered to be so important — until the 'sixties — that "family wages" for fathers were part of social policies, even in America, where about 84 percent of corporations had them as part of their wage and salary structures until the time when Fathers Day became a government-sponsored celebration. Fathers Day took the place of our respect and appreciation of fatherhood that had until that time been thought a necessary part of social life. A whole year of respect for fathers got reduced to a single day each year of celebrating fathers.

Family wages were extra allowances paid by employers to men when they were married, with extra income provisions for each additional child they had. Family wages were being fought by feminists and replaced by family allowances paid to mothers, thereby making fathers a little less needed, as the death-of-a-thousand-cuts of fatherhood progressed to its inevitable conclusion.

Human nature caused then as now much premarital sex to take place (although not so much extramarital sex). The general social attitude was "Vater werden ist nicht schwer, Vater sein dagegen sehr." (To become a father is not hard but to be one very much so.) It was known and expected that men who became fathers dedicated their careers, their lives, their well-being and their souls to being fathers, to become providers, protectors, leaders and mentors for their families.

Few children at that time grew up without the benefit of having a father in their lives. Those that were conceived before marriage became with few exceptions born into marriage. Those that had no fathers were almost without exception fatherless because their fathers had given their lives in the service of their country. That cause of fatherlessness applied to 10 percent of Germany's children after the end of the Second World War.

Fatherhood is as old as humanity, but official government respect for it didn't come into the picture until fatherhood as an essential social concept was on its death bed. Even though society has largely lost its respect for fatherhood, the social reality is that no society can do well without respect for fathers. Love is even better, but there can be no love without respect.

So it comes that roughly half of the children in the Western World now grow up without their fathers, with almost half of children of divorce and separation seeing their fathers not even once already during the first year following the divorce and separation of their parents, with the vast majority of them never seeing their fathers again after that.

Although children who grow up fatherless will suffer for the duration of their lives from a whole range of drawbacks and social pathologies — even from being far more likely to be killed or to become killers or criminals[1], the crime rates for many categories of crime — especially violent crimes and murder — are actually falling.

Obviously, that is not because our younger people are on average becoming better humans or citizens now, but it is because there are now so far fewer of them. Both men and women are becoming increasingly inconvenienced by parenthood or even scared to become parents. About one-third of people don't bother anymore to strike up any kind of family-relationship with an individual of the other sex and remain absolutely childless. The destruction of the family and thereby of the foundation of any well-functioning society that Marx and Engels called for in the Communist Manifesto is now almost complete.[2]

That main goal of the Communist Manifesto is at the very heart of radical feminist ideology. After all, radical feminists do like to give their destructive ideology the more "respected" name of Marxist- or socialist feminism. As Karin Jaeckel, author of books about the family and about our efforts to destroy it, said in a presentation in Washington, DC, June 9, 2001, "Frederick Engels must be dancing in his grave."

The falling crime rates that are the consequence of our falling birth rates may look at first glance to be a blessing: fewer children, fewer crimes. Many of our modern proponents of social engineering, such as Henry Morgentaler, Canada's chief abortionist, actually justify their deadly designs with that argument, just as the earlier proponents of the abortion holocaust expressed their rationalizing with the slogan: "Every child a wanted child."

Reality is different. Compared to children raised in the care of two married biological parents (one of each sex), those raised in the care of single mothers are 33 times more likely to be seriously injured and 73 times more likely to be killed.[3] The vast majority (about two-thirds) of all child abuse is being done by women, with about one-fifth being done by women's boyfriends, common-law husbands and the stepfathers of their children, and only about one-tenth being done by natural fathers of abused children. However, that shows only what happens to our "wanted" children.

What is happening to society and even all of humanity is far more insidious. The birth rates are falling in all nations. According to the last population report by the UN, Cartoon showing disproportionate burden of providing for the elderlyin a total of 84 UN-member nations the birth rates are below the levels required to maintain population levels. In all of the developed nations the birth rates are falling so rapidly that their population levels are now declining so seriously that they have no hope of having sufficient numbers of younger working people to maintain their rapidly growing elderly population sectors, bringing their social safety nets to the brink of collapse. After all, the deliberate deaths of our unborn children involve in the order of 55 million per year in the world, over and above the decline in the numbers of children conceived. No country in the world can escape the consequence of that.

Germany, which lost four million inhabitants during the last quarter century, expects to lose an additional 23 million people during the next 50 years and to see its population by then to decline to 58 million. The Russian Federation, with a total fertility rate of 1.1 children per the average woman's fertile life years, expects to lose 50 million inhabitants during the course of the next 30 years. In Canada and the US, population levels can be maintained only through massive immigration — largely from third-world countries, with the large and escalating influx of people from strange cultures increasingly obliterating our traditional culture and social values because it has long ago exceeded our capability to assimilate the increasing numbers of new-comers without social trauma.

Canada has the highest per-capita immigration rate in the world. Last year 237,000 people came to Canada to make their lives here — almost without exception people from underdeveloped nations, while Canada, with its rapidly escalating taxes, will soon join the ranks of third world countries. The people who push for higher immigration have set the new annual immigration target at one percent of Canada's population per year.   The new target is 350,000 new immigrants each year.

Japan, with virtually no immigration — just like many European countries, experiences a rate of population decline of 30 percent with every successive generation. * In many European countries the rate of population decline is even greater. In one Italian town of close to a thousand people, the total annual number of children born a couple of years ago was one! Italy has one of the lowest birth rates in the world and virtually no immigration. It appears to be no more attractive to prospective immigrants than the Russian Federation is. (* See also Parents' rights a demographic issue, by COLIN P.A. JONES, Special to The Japan Times, Tuesday, July 18, 2006)

In the whole world there has been no annual increase in the number of children born for about 16 years now. As the ideology of death fostered by the Western nations is rapidly spreading throughout the whole world, the end of humanity is within sight. World population numbers are expected to reach 3.7 billion by the year 2150, and it is quite feasible that the goal pursued by proponents of negative population growth — pre-Columbian world population levels of 300 to 500 million people — is quite within the realm of the possible.[4]

Fathers are the weak link within the family, Marx, Engels knew, and redfems still know, that. Therefore, to destroy the patriarchy, they had to destroy the family. To destroy the family, all they had to do was to break its weakest link and to remove it. That wasn't possible without first making it socially acceptable and, better yet, desirable.

For that to happen it is necessary to denigrate and vilify all men and fathers. That strategy for effective social change had been successfully used to eradicate "undesirables" in other eras. The strategy was used to eradicate 80 percent of European Jews — six million in all, with another six million "non-Aryans" having been murdered in the deadly program of racial cleansing by the Nazis. It was used to eradicate "enemies of the state" in the communist nations during the last century, 170 million in all. There was an important difference in the programs of extermination by communist regimes. Almost without exception those murdered by communism were men, fathers or boys — in the USSR about 98 percent of them.[5]
Feminism is communism under another name but just as and even more deadly. It will be up to you and other people your age and younger to determine whether feminists will be permitted to bring the communist strategy of the planned destruction of our families to its bitter conclusion — the end of humanity — or whether love and respect for all will once more become the guiding principle for all societies and permit them to thrive one more time.

With all my love,

Dad

_________________
1.) Children of Divorce & Separation — Statistics on the consequences of father absence

2.) The Communist Manifesto (1848/49), by Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx

3.) A compelling status report and useful suggestions for solutions are provided in the report by the Heritage Foundation "Marriage: The Safest Place for Women and Children", by Patrick F. Fagan and Kirk A. Johnson, Ph.D. Backgrounder #1535.

4.) The Demographics of Death, or, The Decline & Fall of the Human Empire,

5.) How Many Died

*The population sector containing the elderly grows at an unprecedented rate in absolute terms and especially in relative terms with respect to the size of the younger productive population sector that has to bear the increasingly unbearably large responsibility to care and provide for those who can't produce anything any longer for themselves.  One of the consequences of that is an enormous increase (150% in the US from 1986 to 1996) in elderly abuse, predominantly cases of neglect of the elderly. (Trends in Elder Abuse in Domestic Settings, NATIONAL CENTER ON ELDER ABUSE, Elder Abuse Information Series No. 2 (PDF 42kB).  The St. Louis Post-Dispatch produced an excellent series of articles on the topic of fatal elder abuse and neglect in US nursing homes (it is estimated that tens of tousands of cases happen each year), see Neglected to Death (Oct. 12 - 19, 2002).  See abstract and commentary relating to the articles and to the problem of elder abuse and neglect in nursing home and hospitals.)

Is the world overpopulated?

If all of the world's people were located in the Province of Alberta (just a touch smaller in area than the State of Texas) and each were to have an equal share of all of the land in Alberta, then each of the world's people would have 98.6m2 of land to live on.

Assuming that the average household consists of three people, a family of three would have enough space (3,184 ft2) for a moderately-sized house and a garden large enough to grow some of the food consumed by the family.

  • Alberta land area: 661,565 km2, 255,541 miles2
  • World population: 6,706,993,152 (Source: CIA World Factbook, July 2008 est.)

It is obvious that the world's population density will be the controlling factor.  Is that a problem?  Will people any time soon be standing on each other's shoulders? 

How can the world be overpopulated if it is possible to fit the world population, fairly comfortably, into a province the size of Alberta or a state the size of Texas,  even if we divide the whole population into families of three and give each a bungalow and a good-sized garden to boot?

The following table list a number of nations, ranked by their population densities. 

 A table of population densities of various countries, with columns for country, area, population, and population density per km^2

Does anyone seeing those numbers still think that the world is overpopulated?

 


Additional reading:

Just when I think it's not possible to feel any more depressed about modern feminism, along comes another reason to slit my wrists. Last week, women's groups held a press conference to announce a boycott of meetings the federal government is holding on divorce and child custody. Outraged that they're expected to sit down alongside men to discuss matters, the women also complained that a federal booklet written in gender-neutral language "does not make one single reference to women."...
Full story


WorldNetDaily Exclusive Commentary, June 16, 2001

Plundering Fatherhood, by Stephen Baskerville

Fatherhood is all the rage. President Bush unveils a $315 million plan "to promote responsible fatherhood." Sen. Evan Bayh, head of the Democratic Leadership Council, hosts a televised conference on "Connecting Fathers and Families" and promises to make fatherhood a top issue. Both houses of Congress, plus the governors and mayors, create bipartisan taskforces on "fatherhood promotion" and issue resolutions affirming the importance of fathers. The National Fatherhood Initiative holds a Fatherhood Summit in Washington on June 7-8.

How, precisely, the state can promote something as personal and private as a parent's relationship with his own children (let alone whether it should) is seldom explained. But if government fatherhood programs sound somewhat nebulous, there is a more concrete side to our leaders' discovery of fatherhood. In 1998, President Clinton signed the ominously-named "Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act" and announced a "new child support crackdown ... to identify, analyze, and investigate [parents] for criminal prosecution." On the campaign trail Al Gore called for jailing more fathers. ...
Full story


Child Support Chicanery

Washington Times, 17 June 2001,
http://www.washtimes.com/
Commentary section (Forum), p. B5.

Appetite for family destruction, by Stephen Baskerville

Prof. Baskerville writes about Child Support Chicanery

Fatherhood — A letter by Eeva Sodhi to DHHS

Eeva Sodhi writes in response to the US president's commentary on Fathers' Day 2001, about "responsible fatherhood." She states that most fathers are responsible if only mothers let them, and asks whether perhaps next year the president will see his way through to say something about "responsible motherhood."

If you have concerns about these and other issues related to the condition of seniors, visit, contact and perhaps even join:

SUN — Seniors United Now

The up- and coming, rapidly-growing advocacy organization for seniors (55 years and over) in Alberta

There are in the order of about half a million or more people of age 55 and over in Alberta. If all of them were to join SUN, they would become the most powerful advocacy organization in Alberta; and seniors would no longer be robbed of their comforts and otherwise ignored.
   At the price of one package of cigarettes seniors will be able to gain a voice that will be heard by a government that otherwise can and will take from seniors what they worked for all their life to enjoy in their old age.

If you are concerned about how seniors are affected by the planned, systematic destruction of our families and society, this search at google.com will provide you with the links to about 84 web pages at Fathers for Life that will be of interest to you.

__________________
Posted 2001 06 16
Updates:
2001 06 16 (added references for additional reading)
2001 06 17 (added reference to Child Support Chicanery under additional reading)
2001 06 18 (added link to Eeva Sodhi's letter to the US DHHS)
2001 12 29 (added footnote pertaining to Elderly Abuse)
2002 10 20 (inserted reference to St. Louis Post-Dispatch series of articles on the killing of elderly in US nursing homes.)
2004 06 24 (added entry for SUN Seniors United Now)
2007 11 03 (reformated)