Our thanks to Gerry for this.
If you’d like email notifications of our new blog pieces, please enter your email address in the box near the top of the right-hand column and click ‘Subscribe’.
We shall shortly be posting this piece on our X channel.
Our YouTube channel is here.
Justice for Men & Boys 
Its like the paternity test piece and indeed the paying of child support. The first is simple cheap and involves no more than saliva or hair . The latter could easily accommodate a simple on line banking report so the paying parent is assured that the money is going to the child. Yet we have a system that denigrates fathers except when we want them to pay up. And this reflects the idiocy of our times because it turns out deciding the “family” is a mother and her children, and basing all public policy on this requires the rest of us, the taxpayer, funding the whole sorry mess. The real truth is that offering fathers some incentives (mainly in respect and status) to stick with that mother and “her” children and provide payed huge dividends all round. Curiously they then had “our” children and often had support from wider family.
It really is a sort of achievement to contrive so much misery and social fracturing in societies that are still the most materially comfortable in human history.
There is a sort of cruelty in modern society. All the time I see young fathers engaged with their offspring far more than was the case in my youth. Dad’s busily “bonding” with their offspring in a myriad of ways. Yet they do this within a system that will rip up this bonding as quickly and thoughtlessly as a thief, through a system that begins from the premise they are detrimental to the child/ren they have done so much to bond with.
LikeLiked by 2 people
In GB, much of this dogma about ‘a family is a woman and her children’ was introduced by the odious Harriet Harman. In 1990, she was busy with her feminist co-conspirators Anna Coote and Patricia Hewitt, producing the document ‘The Family Way’ for the Institute For Public Policy Research. The summary is this:
“It cannot be assumed that males are bound to be an asset to family life, or that the presence of fathers in families is necessarily a means of social cohesion.”
Why do we allow feminists to get away with their catastrophic social engineering, based on lies? The actual evidence, in the form of African-American society, had been available for 30 years, even in 1990.
Then Starmer attempts to bring Harmer back into today’s politics. God help us.
LikeLiked by 1 person