1/3/02 

Fathers useful for children's academic performance

Fathers who are closely involved in their children's upbringing have a positive impact on academic achievement, say researchers. 

Well, what a surprise!

Do older readers especially not find the very fact that this is actually 'news' absolutely sickening?

And, for younger readers, thirty or less, let me make it very clear lest there be any doubts.

The so-called experts on children - when you were young -  the teachers, the social workers, the police, the justice system, the children's charities, the psychologists, many of those in the media, the agony aunts have done their utmost to conceal what must have been obvious to just about any of them with any intelligence - that fathers are not only very important for children (and for boys especially) but also that without them it is clear that their children are far more likely to have long term problems.

And there are three basic reasons why these so-called experts have, for decades, failed so abysmally even to make mention of the importance of fathers let alone to highlight it. 

The first is that the sheer nastiness, vengefulness and dishonesty of leading feminist women within the media and in academia for the past three decades have made the costs of speaking out against their hateful agenda far too high. And anyone who even dared to support the view publicly that fathers were of significant importance for their children was considered to be 'anti-women'. Those who dared to speak out for fathers were 'marked', targeted and, in some way, debilitated.

As just one example, I clearly remember how in the mid 1980s the head of a London school was hounded by the media and many of his own teachers for daring to suggest that the children of single mothers were disadvantaged educationally compared to those who lived with their own two parents. 

Calls for this poor man to be booted out of his job went on for days.

His sin, of course, was that he was 'slighting' single mothers - and women could never be criticised in those days.

There were phone-ins, discussions and chat shows on the issue, with feminist supporters rallied into the studio audiences and lobbied to pick up their phones.

It was an orchestrated nightmare.

And teachers hardly eever spoke out about such things again, even though they knew that what this man had said was true.

They were silenced by intimidation.

And even today, President Bush is being heavily lobbied and hounded by hysterical feminist groups for his pro-family stance. In the eyes of feminists anything that supports marriage keeps women 'oppressed'. And one of their main arguments is that by supporting marriage, women might end up having to endure the violence of their abusive husbands.

Putting this another way: Even when a government tries today to do something that can only be described as 'wholesome' when it comes to families and children, these nasty vindictive women want to frighten it off by screeching about domestic violence, demonising the fathers, stirring up male hatred and accusing the pro-family politicians of being closet supporters of wife abuse!

Goodness me; even the UK's right-wing 18-year long Tory government under Mrs Thatcher and then John Major never dared to mention the problems associated with, say, single-motherhood, so widespread, long term and vindictive was the influence, in particular, of media feminists. 

Even Mrs T was kept silent!

The second reason that the importance of fathers has been so little mentioned (or researched) for so long is that dragoons of intellectually-impoverished individuals found that they could do well within the above-mentioned professions simply by propounding politically-correct views. Little else was required of them. These gullible people, so easily infected with the feminist hatred of men and so indoctrinated with politically-correct 'group-speak' simply believed what they were told. And any evidence before their very own eyes that contradicted this, they clearly did not have the capacity to understand, let alone to question it.

And they are still with us today.

This is why, for example, the UK Home Office can still actually promote violence quite overtly through its obnoxious publicity campaigns and also through the funding of demonstrably sexist man-hating feminist academic departments that push out phony and invalid 'research' statistics with impunity, while, amazingly, nobody within the various Home Office departments even 'notices' what harm they, themselves, are doing - and this, despite the enormous associated societal problems that we have according to the Home Office's very own figures. 

The third reason is that there was found to be millions - literally - of careers and of dollars to be had from demonising men (e.g. see AH's How would the Nation Survive without Child Abuse?) regardless of what one felt about the ethics of doing so. (e.g. AH's NSPCC SHATTERS CHILD ABUSE MYTHS)

And, I repeat, these people are still with us today.

"Fathers who are closely involved in their children's upbringing have a positive impact on academic achievement, say researchers."

It's astonishing, isn't it? 

Across the USA, Canada, Europe and Australia the governments have, for decades, poured billions of dollars annually into departments of social studies, social services, education, schools and various other children's organisations. 

And yet, astonishingly, it is only now that the negative effects of fatherlessness are being 'discovered' and finally aired in the media!

How could it be that something that must be so obvious to anyone with even a modicum of sense and experience of the world actually be 'news'!?