The Alternative Family is a major feminist policy objective. What it aims at in its implementation is to destroy marriage. Marriage and the implied servitude it represents has been and remains a target to be attacked. Women are and have been told they will become shackled to the kitchen sink and lose any freedom to be individuals should they marry. They have also been told that having a family will also rob them of the opportunity to be individuals. The same rhetoric also carries an anti male content as well.
Of course younger women being fed this propaganda will be possibly unaware that not too many years ago married women had freedom in marriage denied to today's woman. That freedom was based on economics that enabled a family to be supported by one income. The husband's income was usually sufficient to provide particularly during the very important time after children arrived and for some years after.
During the last ten years and particularly during the last three years we have seen rampant house price inflation take place. For the last ten years or so for the majority of either men or women a single income has been insufficient to cover all domestic outgoings. Women have now found themselves having to work to support mortgage repayment by the lending institutions be they bank or building society. Gone now is the freedom their mothers enjoyed -- the freedom of choice as to whether they worked or not. A choice by the way never available for men.
The Alternative Family is also an euphemism for cohabitation. Women are persuaded that a non commitment to marriage will ensure their freedom however exactly the same constraints exist financially as in marriage. Experience shows that cohabitation is even more unstable in terms of duration than marriage and when the arrangement ceases even more damage takes place than at divorce.
Also masquerading under the alternative family banner are same sex associations which are also gaining ground by promoting this sort of arrangement as being a suitable base to raise children a view not supported by a majority of people.
Abortion has become the 20th Century alternative birth control or contraceptive. The annual abortion figures are enormous and are infamous in a society in which reliable contraception exists. The very clear implication is that contraception is not used and pregnancy is an expected outcome to be dealt with by abortion. A welcome move towards the elimination of this travesty is taking place in the USA where a strong anti abortion movement is growing supported by a more religious society than we enjoy. In the USA young people are being encouraged to not engage in sexual experience before marriage and to see it as a vital part of that union and not as another form of self gratification..
A recent sickening event here has been where a 14 year old girl had become pregnant. The girl's mother had been told by one of her daughter's friends that an abortion had been arranged through her school. The girl probably anticipating the disapproval of her mother chose to go to a family planning clinic in her home town. There she was referred to an "outreach health worker" who was part of the school's Community Child Health Service a body allegedly set up to REDUCE teenage pregnancies. The mother rightfully indignant contacted the school and was told that parental consent was not required if as in this case -- her daughter had herself made contact with the service albeit indirectly. The school alleged that parents had been informed about this but the mother and many other parents had no memory of having received any such letter or information.
Unfortunately with the State's wheels turning the next event was the child being delivered to the local hospital to commence the abortion. So another pregnant teenage child was fed into the baby disposal system.
Of course the usual family background pertained here with the parents divorced and no father present to ensure and apply discipline. The statistics that apply show that where parents are divorced doubtless assisted by the UK Divorce Racket the chances of a teenage daughter becoming pregnant are many times higher than in an intact family where of course a father is present.
With the State destruction of the family and by this is meant the heterosexual MARRIED FAMILY not the feminist alternatives and clones has come massive growth in teenage pregnancies as well as other social pathology. It is appalling that the State in its various guises should seek to undermine parental authority as has happened here. The State keeps insisting that parents are responsible for their children whilst at the same time interfering with the application of this responsibility.
Not too many years ago when families had not been torn asunder by State supported divorce and when also the Church carried out its proper pastoral role in connection with both children and the family -- children would have been firmly and strongly reminded about the dangers of sexual activity with some strong sanctions being added. The proof positive from those days is that teenage pregnancy was virtually unknown. All that is now changed in a country that is known as the 'teenage pregnancy capital of Europe'.
As well as feminism claiming it being a woman's RIGHT to destroy life if she so wishes there is the lefty liberal political establishment that thinks along the same lines. With a country that already has close to 50% of its annual live births being illegitimate it is clear that this cannot continue. State funding is the engine that powers this and it is doing so at the cost of providing poor quality services as well as having vastly increased the tax burden for a population who have little idea where and how their tax revenue is spent.
HOT
A recent posting was received from the International Mens Movement Alliance which reported that Father Tom Connelly the pastor of St Kentigerns in Fallowfield, Manchester was leading a campaign objecting to the setting up of - as he calls it "a house of death and carnage". He is referring to an abortion centre being sponsored by Marie Stopes International.
Abortion figures for 2003 published last week by the Department of Health show a 6.6 % rise in the Greater Manchester area to 8643, with 42% of those are committed on women aged 18 to 24. 1004 of the women were under 18.
We welcome Father Connelly's initiative let us hope it receives the local support it deserves.
The unmarried mother industry fronts an in the main benefit supported 50% illegitimate birth rate. That birth rate equates to the annual 50% of all live births which in numerical terms is about 150,000.
The history is traced back to the commencement of the payment of what is known now as Universal Child Benefit in 1965. At that time the illegitimate birth rate was around 2.7% of all live births. To provide some financial assistance for those women who in the main had become pregnant but were not married the then Labout government extended the same financial subsidy as they had to those married to this group.
Very slowly at first as the moral imperatives that supported marriage as the proper state in which to bring children into the world were beginning to be swept away the numbers of illegitimate births began to increase. As more were added year on year the word went round that there was a facility available through the benefit system to obtain money without question. The numbers began to increase as those who had fallen by the wayside and were deserving of support began to be replaced by benefit drones.
So we arrive at today's figure of 50%. The availability of just universal child benefit in 1965 has now had added to it the related tax credit which embraces what are known as passported benefits. It is estimated that the cost of this to the nation is around 30 billion pounds annually. The passported benefits increases this amount further. That amount is equivalent to about 5p in the pound on income tax. Allegedly derived from the taxpayer through PAYE and the National Insurance system it is believed that in fact the stealth taxes imposed by this administration help contribute the subsidy to those working the system.
Mentioned within f4j is the matter of policies brought in beyond those in manifesto. The citizens of this country the vast majority of whom have produced children within the security of marriage and have paid their own way have become without consultation or agreement the cash cows funding this manipulation of the benefit system.
In the main there are no fathers present in these so called families. This in itself raises the matter of the effect on children of unmarried mothers. Dr Sean Stitt an authority on the social pathology affecting fatherless children contends that they are
8 times more likely to be murdered
18 times more likely to murder
40 times more likely to suffer from mental illness
16 times more likely to fail in the education system
20 times more likely to be unemployed
32 times more likely to be homeless
10 times more likely to abuse drugs and/or drink and
35 times more likely to be in prison
What an excellent testament to both the social and economic cost to the nation of the attack on marriage and the failure to do anything about illegitimacy. In actual terms perhaps another 10 billion pounds arises in dealing with the 8 effects listed above.
Another rather detestable aspect of the production of children outside of marriage who in the main will end up without a father is the recent emergence of the website MAN NOT INCLUDED.
The service provided through the website is not designed it would seem to assist with IVF treatment for women who have difficulty conceiving either naturally or because of health problems that have affected the reproductory process. It is there to provide sperm donation to women who do not wish to have a father involved with the intended child . It has perhaps greater interest for those of lesbian tendency.
In any event it supports the proliferation of fatherless families and the matters arising from this group have been dealt with in the section dealing with The Unmarried Mother Industry
A great deal has been done to increase female recruitment to the military. The ethos behind this is driven by the 'equality' lobby to show you guys that the gals can do exactly what you do. This declaration has pointed at the front line and the battlefield in particular.
Firstly when the gals appeared in the selection process they in the main could neither carry battlefield weight equipment or if they could then they were not able to carry out physical testing with the equipment strapped to them. A number of TV documentaries have focused on this aspect and one could not miss the failed gals in tears and becoming very emotional.
The simple matter is that the male and female body and skeleton have developed for different life roles. Apart from the odd butch female there is no way that the female body can equal the performance of the male body in the theatre described. Boadecia spent most of her time in a chariot and never ever carried a fully loaded Bergen and a mortar base plate whilst scaling a wall or moving up a hill at pace.
The fems equality squad had a solution reduce the weight of the equipment until the recruit can pass the test. So this was done.
In the USAF it was found that the female body and skeleton could neither deal with ejector seat acceleration forces or accept the high 'g' forces experienced during high speed turns and rapid change of direction. The answer here was to reduce the ejector seat firing charge so acceleration was reduced. The problem then was the seat could not fire a male occupant high enough to survive a ground level ejection because of the different male versus female body weight. Not sure what was done about high speed manoeuvres -- probably don't do them.
The Navy did not escape equality. It came in the form of females for the first time being allowed to serve on board ship. Concern was expressed about discipline being maintained when males and females were together in close proximity. The concerns manifested themselves in the form of pregnant Wrens.
Where women had been close to the front line in battle condition as happened during the first Gulf War some were captured and suffered sexual indignity at the hands of their captors. In the recent Iraqi conflict some were killed not at the front line however and the call went out for them to be brought home after one of 3 sisters serving in the US Army was killed.
There has been the usual spate of compensation claims launched by service women who were married becoming pregnant and because they could no longer fulfill the need for flexibility of movement of personnel that was required they were discharged. One heard the usual women's rights to have children being bandied about. The compensation issue has even occurred when there was extra marital activity going on and service discipline kicked in. A high profile case concluded recently.
The sight of rear of battlefield cartoons complete with creches and clothes lines with smalls drying, personnel with hair in curlers and shopping expeditions have appeared from time to time. Ones imagination can run to the sight of a supermarket home delivery van trying to snake its way through an advancing column of tanks as it took the pampers and baby meals to the customers.
Doubtless if there were ever a conflict like WW11 where hand to hand fighting might take place with bayonets fixed and where there could be no compromise with performance the gals would be exactly where they were in WW11 well behind any real fighting. The CinCs and high rankers have gone along with the equality issue because firstly men outnumber women in the services and they have seen the matter for what it is -- a game and political correctness gone haywire. However again come a real fight it will be the guys only doing it because no risk would be allowed with having to keep a special eye on under performing female military 'men'.
