26 July 2006
Education Secretary Alan Johnson has launched an outspoken attack on marriage and the two-parent family.
In a major speech, he claimed the traditional 1950s family had encouraged prejudice against single parents.
Yes, it did indeed encourage prejudice against them. That’s because a society rapidly falls apart if it slips into the Matriarchal model of single mothers whelping bastards everywhere, especially when they expect taxpayers to foot the bill.
Some may think it odd that I defend marriage, rather than join this guy in denouncing it, my blog being named Eternal Bachelor and all, but it’s modern marriage since feminists and their political and legal lackies trampled it and then raised it as a skewed and Matriarchal institution that I’m avoiding, not the old style marriage that seemed to offer a lot for both men as well as women. Oh, and not to mention that fact that a lot of post-feminist women in the West have descended into extreme slut-bag entitlement princesses who rarely make good wives or mothers, and don’t even pretend to until they realise they’re used up by all the casual fuckers-and-chuckers and their biological clock is ticking. I can’t speak on behalf of all other anti-feminists and eternal bachelors of course, but I do get the impression a significant number of other guys would have liked to have married and had kids but have sworn off such a route after reailsing it’s far too risky in the Matriarchy, offers no benefits and it’s hardly worth bothering trying to find the tiny number of Western Women who are actually wife material anyway.
Right, back to this MP’s outburst:
“The 1950s masked the reality of prejudice towards lone parents and even worse ‘illegitimate’ children – how extraordinary that we could have used such a term so comparatively recently.”
I love the term ‘illegitimate’. It is, after all, a legitimate term. In fact ‘illegitimate bastard’ is even better. There’s nothing like shaming single mums who go whelping kids out of wedlock and just assume that everyone is a non-judgemental politically correct loser who will refuse to condemn or judge them.
E.g. “Sorry, I don’t want to take you out for a drink sometime Miss, you not only have arse antlers but an illegitimate bastard as well. Double-yuck!”
“Our focus should not be on whether people marry or not, it should be on the welfare of the child, and the quality of the upbringing.”
Right, so that will justify more benefits to single mums, more declarations fathers aren’t necessary, more programmes to encourage single women and lesbians to get IVF, etc. After all, tell anyone that it’s “for the children” and people will submit to anything, as some famous person I can’t quite recall once said.
Labour abolished Married Couples Allowance, the last tax break for married couples, and introduced tax credits which favour single mothers over couples.
Indeed, that’s why non-working single mums are often just as well off, if not better off than married parents who both work full-time and that, naturally, is why more women are choosing to become single mums. The government can now provide better than your average man, because the former taxes the latter to smithereens.
It has also removed the very word marriage from official forms and documents while policy has maintained that all lifestyles and family structures are equally good.
Nineteen-Eight-Four style Socialism at it’s purest. Single mums are equally doubleplusgood to married couples.
At least there are those who refuse to accept this twittering male feminist and his stupid Socialist drivel, like this chap from a Think Tank:
“It is just that on average children do better in two-parent families and the Government has never been willing to face up to that.
“It is unacceptable to talk down marriage like this and undermine it when it is what most people want in this country.”
To finish off, here’s one of the comments left on the Daily Mail’s page from a woman who hits the nail on the head perfectly:
The loony left hate marriage and the traditional family because they know it works for the majority of children who then grow up to be respectable members of society. Only by making it very difficult for two parent families to exist can they be sure of a generation of state dependant citizens who will of course vote Labour. Those of us who couldn’t give a toss for their warped ideals feel smug that we remained in a traditional family and coped when we were taxed to the hilt.
– Kim, auckland n.z
posted by Duncan Idaho @ 5:22 PM
At 11:06 PM, HAWKEYE said…
there seems to be a trend by all governments around the world to feminize everything,we have politicians here in oz who speak of the feminized future all the time.
if things dont improve i am going to quit work and go on welfare ,i dont want to, but it is the best way to protest ,and after all that is where the money is.
i think the goverment wants all woman to have babys and go on welfare and all men to work to pay for it all.
“NOT THIS BLACK DUCK” i am nobodys whore.
At 4:33 PM, Anonymous said…
WHY NOT?! After all, let’s remember feminist sayings like “The best man for the job is a woman” or “Women half to work twice as hard for half the acceptance. Fortunately this isn’t hard.” The next time a female taps you for a favour, you can always tell her that you respect womens’ independence.
At 4:34 PM, nevo said…
Too right hawkeye!!
Since my divorce (she divorced me)I felt I have no further responsibilities towards her. So, I stopped working and now it is easy as it goes on welfare.
The stupidity of the politicians and the relentlessness attacks on thrifting fathers made it morally justifiable this course of action.