Parents come in pairs. If adult society does not respect and honour fathers, why do we expect our children to
do it? Indeed, if fathers are being demeaned, does disrespect for fathers not extend by association to mothers
as well?
Father and mother are male and female. They are sex-specific terms and unmistakably identify the sex of each.
Today's feminists don't like that. Hundreds of millions of people the world over are constantly being reminded
that to use such sex-specific terms is not "politically correct", with the latter term
— first put into use in the USSR during Lenin's tenure — identifying acceptability by
the majority of people. That is what many institutions that are dominated by the forces
that would like to make
humanity over in "Her" image would like us to believe. They pay little heed to what the majority of people want.
They are preoccupied with what they can do to change the wants of the majority of people
(and thereby make them wanting in many different ways). Therefore, it is often "claimed" that something is not permissible or acceptable terminology, in an attempt to
make it "politically incorrect" first, then socially unacceptable, and eventually illegal.
Microsoft, being dominated and controlled to a large extent by feminist interests, is one of the most influential
promoters of changes to our language. Microsoft Word 6 is the word processor I'm using. When I enable the
grammar checker, I'll be reminded in a very suggestive manner that certain words are not quite acceptable to be
used. I'll be told that when I use the words "men" or "woman", that
Men: Gender-specific expression, consider replacing with persons, human beings,
or individuals.
Woman: Gender-specific expression, consider replacing with person, human being, or
individual.
Similar explanations are offered in MSWord6's grammar checker for infantryman and fireman. When I check the
grammar explanation for more details on this, what I'm told is this:
Rule: Gender-specific Expression
Expressions that refer exclusively to one sex may offend some readers. Such expressions may be appropriate in
some contexts, especially if paired with a term for the other sex. It is preferable to use terms that do not
imply gender.
I've been told that this "rule" has been expanded in later versions of MSWord to include the terms "mother" and
"father". There is nothing in any laws that demands that this "rule" is mandatory, yet some people demand that
we must guard against the use of the words in our language to avoid offending "some people."
What about avoiding the use of non-sex-specific words, such as parent instead of mother or father, that offend not
just some but the majority of all people? Is is not important to follow the Fifth Commandment and to honour the
contributions that fathers make to society by being the ones who comprise the majority of people who sacrifice their
health, life and limbs in the service of family and country?
The majority of firemen are fathers, virtually all policemen are fathers, so are almost without exception all
infantrymen and men who die in other professions and duties that include elements of danger or exposure to the
elements, whether it involves digging ditches, mining for coal or sailing the oceans. The Canadian Armed Forces
are comprised of more than 60,000 people. About 10 percent of these people are women, and the proportion of
women is falling. That is in spite of lowering the common denominators for qualifying, to make it easier for
women to be eligible on account of their far lesser than average human strength, and in spite of more than a decade of
active, all-out advertising to entice women to join the armed forces. Only 150 women serve in active combat
positions, with their number steadily dropping after it had reached a high of about 450 a little more than a year ago.
More than 50,000 American men lost their lives in the service of their country and families in Vietnam, yet women
complained that the nine women who left their lives in the service of their country during that war did not receive
sufficient recognition. These nine women had been excluded from the sculptures commemorating the sacrifices of
men. It was said that these nine women should have their very own war memorial, although their names are
included in the long list of names shown on the black wall.
And not a woman amongst them
To preserve and protect
Is it not offensive and disrespectful to men and to fathers to hide the fact that they are the ones who almost
exclusively are either asked or forced to sacrifice their lives in duty for family and country? Is it not
demeaning that the sacrifices of men are being hidden in non-sex-specific terms such as firefighter, member of the
armed forces, and police officer?
It may at first glance seem that the relationship between sex and fathers in that respect is tenuous, but to say
that would be wrong. At a time when our prime concerns in human relations focused on the two sexes that comprise
humanity, fathers did receive much respect for the sacrifices they made. Some people didn't like hat and applied
Mao Tse-tung's ideas to achieve what Erin Pizzey calls the planned destruction of our
families. In her writings and talks, Erin Pizzey describes how in the early seventies women from all over
the world devised a plan whereby Chairman Mao's ideas for the
destruction of our families could be made a reality by vilifying and demonizing men. Once men are downgraded
to the status of inferior humans and beasts, the traditional nuclear family is a push-over.
It is ironic and a great injustice to men and our children that men, who comprise the vast majority of people who
leave their lives in their duty toward family and country, also lose in the majority of divorces all rights to be
fathers to their children. Although divorce statistics indicate that child custody awards during the last
decade were increasingly made for "joint custody," those gains for the status of joint custody were at the expense of
sole father-custody. Thereby the children are increasingly under the control of their mothers who often do their
best to thwart all attempts by fathers to maintain their bond with their children. That is done through the
defiance of the court orders that provide for equal or at least some access by fathers. Custodial mothers are
being actively encouraged in their defiance by the courts. The courts rarely enforce the access rights of
fathers, and, if they do, only at great expense to fathers.
Part of the agenda for the destruction of our families, ostensibly for the
establishment of gender equality, is the insistence of
gender activists to establish gender
rights. There are rare genetic aberrations that blur the distinctions between the sexes, and it is no doubt
necessary to protect the human rights of people who are so afflicted — along with all other people who have either
physical or mental handicaps that cause them to deviate from human norms. Nevertheless, the
gender advocates (many of them Canadian) active at home and at UN agencies
insist, under threat of economic sanctions against opposing countries, that any references to the sexes must be
expressed in terms of "genders". They ask for that not for rare genetic
aberrations but rather for sexual orientation and acquired sexual behaviour. Their list of "genders"
presently includes:
heterosexual male
heterosexual female
homosexual male
homosexual female
transsexual (male to female)
transsexual (female to male)
bisexual
Note that five of the "genders" deal exclusively with acquired sexual behaviour.
Those latter five categories will most likely be expanded, because the catch-all term "sexual
orientation" doesn't explicitly exclude specific sexual orientations such as intergenerational sexual relations (pedophilia
or pederasty — whose legalization some liberal advocates are calling for) and
copulation with animals (bestiality). Any mention of hybrids, the only humans who can make a legal claim that
biology has short-changed them by composing in them a mix of both sexes, glares by its absence from the list, but
without doubt, they are candidates for addition, although some of them are infertile and can't contribute to the
propagation of the human species.
However, it doesn't stop there. Our education systems indoctrinate children from kindergarten onward that
they have the right not to be disciplined. It is being promulgated that any form of disciplinary action by
parents against their children for an infraction, be it a slap on the wrist or on the bottom, being grounded, or
simply being made to do the dishes constitutes child abuse. In a manner that is no
different from the methods used by other totalitarian regimes in the former communist East-Germany, Soviet Russia, and
the People's Republic of China under Mao, our teachers now encourage children to report all cases of such "abuses"
either to them or to Social Services.
The comments in this page contain frequent references to the communist origins of
family-hostile policies and politics. That is no accident. The planned destruction of the family was
part of the communist agenda from its inception by Karl Marx and Frederic Engels. It
became government policy in the USSR in about 1917. It was so successful in the USSR that it threatened to destroy all
of society in the USSR. Curiously, while in the 1940s the USSR took steps to repair the damages its
family-hostile policies had caused, American communists imported the Soviet agenda for the planned destruction of the
family into the USA. It has been and continues to be promoted by left-leaning liberals in the West ever since.
(4)
Being a parent is no easy duty. It requires a person's full and selfless devotion to his children. That
duty is a difficult one even if both parents are true to their marital vows. It is far more difficult to succeed
at that duty when one parent must perform it by himself, far more difficult yet if the sole parent is a mother.
Coupled with the indoctrination by the education system of our children, that they are being abused when they are
being disciplined, it should not surprise anyone that many of our children lost all respect for their parents and are
incapable of honouring them.
One of the fastest growing populations of members of support groups is that comprised of single mothers who are
being abused by their children. Their unruly children are far more likely than other children to wind up in
foster homes. Roughly one percent of our children wind up in foster care, with the majority being from
single-mother families, but it is the children in foster care who'll comprise 60 to 70 percent of our jail and prison
population. Currently about 80 percent of the inmates in our correctional institutions grew up
fatherless, but, depending on the locality, between 60 and 70 percent of prison
inmates were in the "care" of the government at the time they were eighteen. These children had no chance at all
to do their duty by honouring their parents, but, far worse, they were deprived of the promise contained in the Fifth
Commandment.
It is incredible, but sadly true, that now there is not one of the Western industrialized nations which actively
seeks to strengthen the status of families headed by two heterosexual parents. Heterosexual families are being
discouraged from coming into existence or from remaining functioning and whole. Ostensibly in the name of
equality, women are being given incentives to walk out of their marriages. In Canada, three out of every four
divorces are filed for by women. In Germany, the corresponding figure is just under 70 percent. In England
it is a high as 85 percent. The figures in all Western developed nations are similar. In addition,
punitive taxation directed at families headed by two heterosexual biological parents, especially those with only one
income earner, provides motivation for many potential parents to forego all thoughts of suffering the
consequences of being married and to have children. The result of that is a rapidly
declining marriage rate, a divorce rate that has steadily increased during the last three decades, and last but not
least, coupled with enormous abortion rates, the decline of our birth rate to a level where population growth can't be
maintained without massive increases in immigration rates. The latter put additional stress on our society, to
make our new immigrants capable of fitting in, to have them adjust, and to support them through the social-support
safety network until they become productive members of our society — while all of society must adjust to their right
to have their own unique cultural identities that entitle them to exist in an increasingly multi-cultural society that
is losing its traditional national identity and is therefore turning into a cultural chaos. Our nation has
become a free-for-all in which each ethnic groups jockeys for position and government hand-outs, but in which much of
the community spirit that made Canada great became and is being obliterated.
Marriage and Divorce Rates in Canada (1967-1995)
from
SELECTED STATISTICS ON CANADIAN FAMILIES
AND FAMILY LAW — November 1997, Department of Justice Canada
Whereas it is safe to assume that three decades ago almost all Canadian children lived in the care of two
biological, married parents (information on that isn't being published by Statistics Canada), during the last decade
the number of children in single parent and common-law households (with the latter often involving only one biological
parent) increased from about 22 percent to more than 30 percent of all Canadian children.
Note that in 12 percent of all Canadian families with two parents (that would include common-law couples) not one
of the parents works. The information in the graph doesn't indicate what the proportions of working and
non-working single parents are. The vast majority of non-working single parents are single mothers. I have no
knowledge of direct sources of such information for Canada, although such information is easily available in the US.
The following table indicates the proportions of single parents on welfare south of our border. Due to the
generally greater generosity of Canadian Social Services toward mothers, the disparity between Canadian single mothers
and single fathers who are on welfare is most likely far greater. Some put these figures in the order of 80 and
10 percent respectively.
79.6% of custodial mothers receive a support award
29.9% of custodial fathers receive a support award.
46.9% of non-custodial mothers totally default on support.
26.9% of non-custodial fathers totally default on support.
20.0% of non-custodial mothers pay support at some level
61.0% of non-custodial fathers pay support at some level
66.2% of single custodial mothers work less than full time.
10.2% of single custodial fathers work less than full time.
7.0% of single custodial mothers work more than 44 hours weekly.
24.5% of single custodial fathers work more that 44 hours weekly.
46.2% of single custodial mothers receive public assistance.
20.8% of single custodial fathers receive public assistance.
[Technical Analysis Paper No. 42 - U.S. dept. of Health and Human Services - Office of Income Security Policy]
40% of mothers reported that they had interfered with the fathers visitation to punish their ex-spouse.
["Frequency of Visitation" by Sanford Braver, American Journal of Orthopsychiatry]
50% of mothers see no value in the fathers continued contact with his children.
["Surviving the Breakup" by Joan Berlin Kelly]
See also Fathers, Fatherhood and Fatherhood Issues
Table with data from which the above graph was constructed
The wishes expressed by Chairman Mao, to cut the fourth rope that binds women and to have mothers participate in
the labour force, have therefore largely succeeded in Canada, to some extent by depriving children of time with both
of their parents who both have to pursue jobs to satisfy the increasingly unbearable costs for many of raising
children, and in other instances by doing nothing more than to rip apart families and put enormous numbers of mothers
on the dole or into the workforce and largely removing them from their children's lives..
Many women who insisted on their entitlement "to have it all" and to have the fathers — whom they expelled from, or
refuse to include in, "their" families — be income providers in absentia, now find themselves "having to do it all."
Never before in Canadian history were so many women incapable or unwilling to be primary care-givers and income
providers to boot. Never before were so many women on welfare and never did so many children in their care grow
up in poverty and in the absence of fathers.
What further aggravates the handicaps under which today's children have to grow up is the fact of the increasing
separation of grandparents from the families of their children. Ever increasing numbers of elderly are being
institutionalized or ware-housed. They have ever-decreasing levels of close contact with their children and
grandchildren, therefore play an increasingly diminishing part in the intergenerational transfer of knowledge and
moral traditions. Grandparents,
who three decades or longer ago provided much of the stability in Canadian
Society, are not much of a factor anymore in the upbringing of our children. The population
sector containing the elderly is growing 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 thousands of
cases happen each year), 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.)
Under these circumstances it is not to be expected that the promise contained in the Fifth Commandment will be
fulfilled for the Canadian society.
It is inconceivable to many people that so many different countries in the world pursue almost identical agendas
for the destruction of their families and thereby prepare the way to make it impossible for increasing numbers of
people to live up to the requirements of the Fifth Commandment and to reap its benefits. There is a unifying
force that makes it happen, the UN.
At the Beijing UN conference on women,
the feminists made it clear how they feel about anything relating to normal
families. They also made it clear that their feelings and their agenda
are without any doubt incompatible with any religion that promotes traditional
family values. It would be wrong to dismiss the UN-sponsored agenda for
the implementation of the planned destruction of the family as merely
the rantings of a few extremist, radical-feminist women. Any pieces of family-hostile legislation that fail to
be passed by a local national government are being promoted at the UN and its various agencies. There they are
being relentlessly promoted into acceptance by means of extortion by threat of economic sanctions against opposing,
mostly underdeveloped countries. Once the agenda becomes accepted, it is then introduced in the form of
guidelines and conventions that are then being used to enforce compliance in the local national legislative bodies.
Much of that is being done ostensibly to promote equality of women and "in the best
interest of the child" (girl-child, that is!).
That is what happened at the Fourth UN World Conference on Women, in Beijing, 1995 — it wasn't so much about
women's rights as it was how society can best serve the interests and entitlements of women and "their" girl-children.
[ENB (Earth Negotiations Bulletin) background (so they say)
The Earth Negotiations Bulletin is an independent reporting service that provides daily coverage of
negotiations on environment and development at the United Nations. It is published by the International
Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD)], and
At a UN conference in Turkey, Ottawa's strident homo-feminist agenda provokes an angry counter-attack from the
Third World: "CANADIANS GO HOME"
Chairman Mao (or should that more correctly be Chairperson Mao?) must be chuckling and smiling in his grave.
At any rate, cutting the fourth rope that binds women to families has proven to be an effective means to remove women
and children from the warmth of supportive family relations and to brings not salvation but increased levels of misery
to humanity. That is the consequence when governments engage in programs that aim at obliterating the Fifth
Commandment.
______________________
Notes:
Quotations from Chairman Mao Tse-tung (The Little Red Book)
31. WOMEN -- Report on an Investigation of the
Peasant Movement in Hunan (March 1927), Selected Works, Vol. I, pp. 44-46.
The chapter contains prescriptions for a plan that will "liberate" women, in the
form of some very important tips on how to "arouse the great mass of women who did not work in the fields before to
take their place on the labour front...." so that they can be removed from a life of idleness in the protection of
their families and be made to do productive work for the greatness of the State — in our society it isn't working,
is it?
A very large number of the women "liberated" from the "oppression by family and clan" are now on
welfare or perform menial part-time work for minimum wages. Many of the men who lost the right to have
children and families see no purpose in a life that condemns them to slavery, in being indentured to the State for
life. They become: less productive; perhaps, to escape the destitution and unbearable oppression by a cruel
system that contrived to rob them of their families, they become substance abusers; they become unemployed; they
become members of skid row; they commit suicide, and
some ultimately crack completely to lash out by killing themselves, their children and
the mothers of their children — some even kill their lawyers.
A recent television commercial (Nov. 1998) sponsored by UNICEF showed dishes
being washed. The voice-over explained that the sound of dishes being washed means for millions of children no
more than the sound of child abuse. It then urged people that if they believe that children have the right to
play, they should give generously. But not once has UNICEF spoken up against the killing of unborn children
and it made no effort to get the UN to interfere effectively in the mass killing of children and parents in Rwanda.
What the UN did instead was to supply enormous amounts of "birth control" devices, everything from
condoms to
abortion equipment. What the UN did not was to provide medical supplies in quantities that even remotely
addressed the needs of the population and wounded in a country in absolute turmoil.
From Marxism to
Feminism: The planned destruction of the American family
Statement of Bill Wood
FC-8 Hearing on Waste, Fraud, and Abuse July 17, 2003
TESTIMONY FOR THE [US] WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE
If you have concerns about these and other issues related to the condition of
seniors, visit, contact and perhaps even join:
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.
