Archive | where the fuck is daddy? RSS feed for this section

Feminazis earn their moniker by protesting things that are literally true. Down with facts! Up with ideology! Oh, that’s worked out marvelously in the past.

11 Jun



In response to words printed in a scary thing called a newspaper, available in both paper and electronic format, some wingnut feminists are calling for a man to be fired from his position and some other men to be forced to change their words to reflect what the feminists feel is a better choice of words.  The “better choice” is of course the choice that best obscures some icky facts feminists don’t wike!


The opinion that rape confers special victimhood status on the “survivor” is apparently outrageous because, according to the UltraViolet petition, no person is allowed to question the veracity of rape claims.  From female victims.  The jury is still out when it comes to male victims. The reality that lowering the bar on what constitutes rape to ground level will inevitably lead to  a whole lot of women being held accountable for rape will no doubt take a while for the feminist mind to process. And the growing list of men falsely accused of sexual misconduct and punished by kangaroo courts on college campuses, is met with utter indifference from the rape culture crowd.  Meh.  Who cares, right?


The whole rape culture argument has devolved into pure hysteria – totally irrational and devoid of any evidence, facts or truths – this video from Christina Hoff Summers aka The Factual Feminist lays out the case brilliantly.



But what really, really irritates me is the second part of the Huffington Post story:  the Washington Post changed a headline in response to outrage from fascists who refuse to allow any truth that doesn’t meet their ideological framework to be proclaimed.  Here is the truth that is pissing them off so badly:


Married women are notably safer than their unmarried peers, and girls raised in a home with their married father are markedly less likely to be abused or assaulted than children living without their own father.




Start with the threat that girls face from men. One of the most comprehensive portraits of sexual and physical abuse of girls (and boys) comes from the Fourth National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect. As the figure above indicates, children are more likely to be abused when they do not live in a home with their married father. What’s more: girls and boys are significantly more likely to be abused when they are living in a cohabiting household with an unrelated adult—usually their mother’s boyfriend. Indeed, the report notes that “only 0.7 per 1,000 children living with two married biological parents were sexually abused, compared to 12.1 per 1,000 children living with a single parent who had an unmarried partner.” The results from this federal study are consistent with academic research that indicates that “girls who are victimized are … more likely to have lived without their natural fathers,” and that the risk is especially high when a boyfriend or stepfather is in the picture.


 The risk of physical abuse also increases when a child lives without her father, once again, particularly when an unrelated boyfriend is in the home. A 2005 study published in Pediatrics found that  “[c]hildren residing in households with unrelated adults were nearly 50 times as likely to die of inflicted injuries than children residing with 2 biological parents.”



Women are also safer in married homes. As the figure above (derived from a recent Department of Justice study) indicates, married women are the least likely to be victimized by an intimate partner. They are also less likely to be the victims of violent crime in general.

Overall, another U.S. Department of Justice study found that never-married women are nearly four times more likely to be victims of violent crime, compared to married women. The bottom line is that married women are less likely to be raped, assaulted, or robbed than their unmarried peers.



What’s going on here? Why are women safer when married and children safer when living with their married biological parents? For girls, the research tells us that marriage provides a measure of stability and commitment to the adults’ relationship, that married biological fathers are more likely to be attentive and engaged with their children because they expect the relationship to be enduring. As a consequence, unrelated males are less likely to have sustained interaction with children of the family when dad has a day-in-day-out presence in the home. More generally, the “emotional support and the supervision” that engaged fathers provide to their children can limit their vulnerability to potential predators, as David Finkelhor, director of the University of New Hampshire Crimes Against Children Research Center, has observed.


In other news, water is wet and fire has a 100% probability of being hot.


Chief Royal Shrieky Witch herself, the lovely Amanda Marcotte, immediately jumps on the backpedal express, claiming the article is really just a threat to women: Get married or you face the violent consequences, ladies. Because clearly there is no distinction to be made between an observation of fact and a threat.


Bananas are yellow.





Did you just threaten me?



Then Amanda goes on to explain that married people tend to be wealthier which allows them to live in nice neighborhoods and they kind of like that and tend not to fuck up their lives with violence.  While it is true that wealthy people are the ones who seem to grasp that marriage is an important facet of happiness for most people, marriage is also one of the best ways to accumulate wealth with one important caveat:  it has to be a lasting marriage.  Get married and stay married and, according to the Census Bureau (2010) your median net worth when you are between 55 and 64 will be $261,405. Compare that to $71,428 for a man heading a household, and $39,043 for a woman heading a household.


Is marriage automatically going to make a couple wealthy?  Of course not, but it hardly takes a mathematical genius to know that two people earning minimum wage are going to be able to afford a much nicer lifestyle than one person earning minimum wage.  Toss a kid in the mix when you only have one income and you are fucked. And not only are you and the kid personally fucked, you create a society in which kids living near you are less likely to be successful, too.  Being surrounded by women who make stupid, financially disastrous choices seems to teach children that stupid, financially disastrous choices are the way to go.


What is behind this feminist hatred of simple facts?  Why are feminists so opposed to long-term married couples with children accumulating wealth and living in safe communities?  Why are they opposed to children growing up in homes with their biological parents, protected from violence, abuse and assault?


Well, which way do those couples tend to vote?


Oh look!


Marriage gap



How does rape culture fit in here?  It’s the principle means by which the feminist media convinces women, especially young college aged women, that men are dangerous predators who will harm them and their children and being a single mother is so much more fun! Whee!


Get married and stay married, ladies and your odds of living in poverty just dropped dramatically! $260K net worth vs $40K! You’re less likely to be the victim of violent assault, more likely to be happy (if you are committed to the marriage and not to yourself, that is) and your children are less likely to be abused.


How threatening!

But think of all those welfare and social safety net programs that aren’t gonna be needed anymore!  And that is the real threat, isn’t it?  Who works in these programs?  Who earns a nice state or federal salary for doing what amounts to bullshit work? Who counts on an endless supply of single women dragging their children through poverty to earn their own comfortable living?



Women depend heavily for jobs on some sectors that aren’t doing well in the recovery, particularly government.


Well, isn’t that curious?  Must be a coincidence, right?  Lots of liberal arts educated white ladies working in government – the demographic most likely to identify as feminist – and they don’t like the facts about lasting marriages broadcast too loudly.  But they do like the rape culture narrative out there front and center to plant the fear of men deep in women’s souls.


Follow the money.  It always comes down to that, doesn’t it, with ideologues?  The money leads to one place:  single women, terrified of rape and men and marriage, create jobs for rich white women.  Feminism promotes the well-being of women and girls?


About as much as Hitler promoted the well-being of homosexuals, the disabled and Jews, if you ask me.


Lots of love,





Look! Another Thought Catalog piece!

31 May

Seems like maybe the mainstream media is ready to start considering some issues we have been discussing for a long time.


Better late than never, right?

Canada eliminates Father’s Day! My, how progressive.

27 May

Okay, it’s just one school in Canada, but mark my words, this is a harbinger of things to come. Unless we push back now.

Here’s the quick and dirty summary:  the daughter of a lesbian couple had her precious feelings hurt on Father’s Day, because she doesn’t have a father so she complained and the school responded by eliminating both Father’s Day and Mother’s Day and replaced them with Family Day.

There is so much wrong with this, it’s hard to know where to begin.

Let’s start with the idea that the child of a same sex couple doesn’t have a father or mother.  Brooklin (what a stupid name – you could at least spell it correctly) has two mommies, and no daddy.  Kindergarten biology, folks.  ALL CHILDREN HAVE TWO PARENTS.  Brooklin has a father, alright.  He has just been eliminated from Brooklin’s life.  I understand completely that Brooklin’s two mommies are uncomfortable having to answer “where’s my daddy” from their daughter, but guess what?


Too fucking bad. Brooklin’s two mommies have made choices that will have an effect on their daughter and as grown-ups, with full agency and responsibility, they have a moral responsibility to own those choices.  Tell Brooklin where her father is.  Let her know the circumstances of her conception. What are you afraid of?  Being judged?  Boo-hoo.  Cry me a river.

I have no problem with same sex couples raising children.  By all accounts they do a wonderful job.

I do have a huge problem with same sex parents deciding they don’t have to confront any uncomfortable realities about how they came to have children, and then attempting to force everyone around them to change.

And what sort of message is this sending to the children? That you never, ever have to confront unpleasant realities?   That you never have to grapple with difficult or perplexing situations?  That it’s perfectly acceptable to destroy other people’s happiness because you can’t share in it?  And to spin it out as “fairness” is pretty sickening.  All the special snowflakes, demanding the world change so they don’t have to feel “uncomfortable”.


There are many reasons children don’t have fathers in their lives in meaningful ways.  Some have never met their fathers and have only a file number from the sperm donor clinic for reference. Some have lost their fathers to illness or accident or battle.  Some have fathers who live or work on the other side of the world.  But let’s be honest: most children who have no meaningful relationship with their fathers are the product of divorce or single motherhood.  For many of those children, their fathers have been forcibly ejected from their lives by their MOTHERS, backed up by a court system that disproportionately awards custody of children to the mother.

This isn’t about children of same sex couples or children whose fathers have died.  This is about women who have deliberately taken children away from their fathers, and who don’t care to confront that reality on the one day children are encouraged to pour their love for their daddies out onto construction paper and cover it with glitter.


The defacto result of turning Mother’s Day and Father’s Day into Family Day is that mothers end up with both holidays, and never have to answer for the choices they have made.

Children whose fathers have died have suffered a grievous loss, but they can at least understand what has happened. In many cases, no one is to blame.  If Daddy died in an accident, or was lost to illness, or died in the line of duty, Father’s Day becomes a tribute and a way to help those children handle their grief.


When Daddy has been forcibly ejected by Mommy, Father’s Day becomes rife with silent accusations and confusion and a deep sense of betrayal.  Where is my daddy?  The glitter on the card suddenly takes on some sharp edges, and plenty of mommies don’t want to face the terrible harm they have done their children, usually for the most spurious of reasons.  Harm that resonates for decades.

Those who are sanguine about widespread divorce like to say that divorce is just a temporary crisis, that family members bounce back after a couple of years ready to start a fresh journey. But governments around the world, lonely aging persons, and grown children of divorce struggling with whether to care for and how to grieve their divorced parents are telling us that the results of family breakdown are far more dramatic and lasting. In death the many losses of divorce – relational, financial, and spiritual – can arise anew. The stories of younger people suggest that the consequences of divorce will be felt for decades to come.

All these grown-ups (mostly women) who are so quick to jump on the band-wagon to eliminate, effectively, ONLY Father’s Day, might want to pause for a sobering second to think about how the destruction of their family will play out in the long run.

divorce party

Google “divorce party cakes” at your peril.  You will despair.

Divorced mothers, you have taught your children there is no place for duty or honor.  There are no commitments that cannot be broken.  There are no vows that cannot be unspoken.  There are no obligations that cannot be discarded.  There are no responsibilities that cannot be shirked. If ever you are asked to deal with an uncomfortable truth, immediately demand that the truth be hidden.  If something is broken, don’t try to fix it.

Throw it away.


The chickens always come home to roost, though, don’t they?  One day these empowered divorcees will be old and in need of some practical help.  A ride to the doctor’s office.  Some help with groceries.  Just the normal, daily routines of life.  They will get harder.  Someone will have to step in, perhaps out a sense of love, and loyalty, and responsibility, and obligation and gratitude?


Who will that be?

The children, to whom not one ounce of loyalty or responsibility or obligation was ever shown?  How can women who have shredded their children’s lives expect anything less than the same willingness to discard any sense of obligation or duty?

This is really what eliminating Father’s Day is about:  women’s fear of facing the consequences of their decisions.  Women earn less money than men, typically because they have fewer skills and work fewer hours.

Divorced women are more likely to live in poverty.

Women live longer than men.

And no one can stop time.  I suspect it will be at the end of their lives that women realize, oh, oops, looks like fish do need bicycles after all.

By which point it will be way too late.  And the children who were encouraged to never, ever feel “uncomfortable” or challenged in any way will continue to do just that.  They won’t be made uncomfortable by their mother’s hour of need.

They will give exactly the number of fucks Mommy gave when she tossed Daddy out.


Oh, but don’t worry.  They’ll send Family Day cards.

With extra glitter.

You reap what you sow.

Lots of love,


%d bloggers like this: