Guest Post from Europia: The Importance of Fathers

Below is a guest post contributed by someone who wishes to remain anonymous. Remember, If you have something you want to say that is in line with the blog’s purpose and topics, feel free to send it to me.

3. I just thought that these figures MIGHT interest you, even though some of them might be a generation old.

3.01: I just thought that you would find the following FACTS from Social History of some interest. The 43% of U.S. children who live without their father (U.S. Bureau of the Census) account for the following:
3.02: 60% of America’s rapists came from fatherless homes. Source: “Life without Father,” copyright 1996 by David Popenoe. Reprinted by permission of the Free Press, an imprint of Simon & Schuster Inc.
3.03: 63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Bureau of the Census).
3.04: 70% of long-term prison inmates as opposed to youths in prison, are fatherless. Source: “Life without Father,” copyright 1996 by David Popenoe. Reprinted by permission of the Free Press, an imprint of Simon & Schuster Inc.
3.05: 70% of youths in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes (U.S. Dept. of Justice, Sept. 1988).
3.06: 71% of pregnant teenagers lack a father (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services press release, March 26, 1999).
3.07: 71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes (National Principals Association Report on the State of High Schools).
3.08: 72% of adolescent murderers grew up without a father. Source: “Life without Father,” copyright 1996 by David Popenoe. Reprinted by permission of the Free Press, an imprint of Simon & Schuster Inc.
3.09: 75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers come from fatherless homes (Rainbows for All God’s Children).
3.10: 80% of rapists with anger problems come from fatherless homes (Justice & Behavior, Vol 14, p. 403-26).
3.11: 80% of adolescents in psychiatric hospitals come from broken homes. US Dept. Of Health & Human Services (1988
3.12: 85% of all youths in prison as opposed to long-term prisoners come from fatherless homes (Fulton Co. Georgia, Texas Department of Corrections, 1992).
3.13: 85% of all children who show behavior disorders come from fatherless homes (Center for Disease Control).
3.14: 90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes (U.S. Bureau of the Census).

4.01: Regarding “Deadbeat Dads” you may find these figures of some interest.
4.02: 90.2% of fathers with joint custody pay the support due.
4.03: 79.1% of fathers with visitation privileges pay the support due.
4.04: 44.5% of fathers with no visitation pay the support due.
4.05; 37.9% of fathers are denied any visitation.
4.06: 66% of all support not paid by non-custodial fathers is due to the inability to pay.
4.07: In 1992 the General Accounting Office (GAO) found 14% of fathers who owe back child support are dead.
Source 4.02 – 4.06 inclusive [1988 Census “Child Support and Alimony: 1989 Series” P-60, No. 173 p.6-7, and “U.S. General Accounting Office Report” GAO/HRD-92-39FS January 1992]

5.01: 61% of all child abuse is committed by biological mothers (Department of Health and Human Services Report on Nationwide Child Abuse).
5.02: Rates of serious abuse are lowest in intact families; six times higher in stepfamilies; 20 times higher in cohabitating biological parent families and 33 times higher when the mother is cohabitating with a boyfriend who is not the father. (UK research).
5.03: 70.8% of children killed by one parent are killed by their mothers! 206 (National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System)
5.04: 70.6% of children abused by one parent are abused by their mothers! (U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services Child Maltreatment reports from 2001-2006

6.01: Child Murders
6. 02: Killed by Mothers 1,100
6.03: Killed by Live-In Boyfriends 513
6.04: Killed by Stepfathers 250
6.05: Killed by Biological Fathers 137
Source of 6.02 – 6.05 inclusive, The Heritage Foundation report “The Child Abuse Crisis: The Disintegration of Marriage, Family, and the American Community,” May 15, 1997.

4 responses to “Guest Post from Europia: The Importance of Fathers

  • Anonymous

    You would think with all the Trillions of dollars the Justice Department has at their disposal they would be aware of this.
    It’s intentional?

    Carry on

  • darlingdoll

    Within the justice system there is an automatic assumption that the mother is the more important parent in a child’s life. While this may be true in some cases, the fact of the matter remains that in the majority of cases, a child benefits the most from having both a positive male and positive female presence in his or her life.

    And for any woman who wants to chime in with stories about all the women she knows who divorced horrendous men who don’t deserve to be in the child’s life, I say I know a few of those too. However, I know an equal number of men who married horrendous women, who shouldn’t be and don’t deserve to be in their child’s life. The difference is, the justice system assumes custody with the mother is better and burden of proof otherwise rests on the father.

    There are many fathers who only have part time custody or no custody of their children, and it’s that way because they simply can’t afford to defend themselves or fight the original custody order. Court costs and attorney’s fees for these types of matters easily climb into the tens of thousands of dollars. Add that to the alimony and child support payments you have to make and it doesn’t leave much for you to live on, let alone continue a fight that’s stacked against you. That’s why it would have been such a triumph in one of many injustices toward men if the Florida Alimony Reform Bill had passed. Sadly, you can see just how permeated with feminist dogma the legal system is.

  • Sherlock

    “Remember, If you have something you want to say that is in line with the blog’s purpose and topics, feel free to send it to me.”

    This is a post I made over at toysoldier in reply to a comment someone made and it refers to some views on men I was exposed to by a feminist over at the I think the points I raise are very important and so take the oportunity to publish it where I can. English is not my first language and its not very well written but if it can just stay as a comment in this thread I`d be happy. No need to make it into a blog post of its own.

    Yes, the original sin of being born male. Or the original sin of being masculine in HeaterNs way of twisting things.

    In another trhead she called conventional masculinity ass hatery. Going into detail she mentioned things such as being competetive, stoic, dominant, aggressive and strong as toxic masculinity and ass-hatery or something like that. The problem is all those are normal traits in a person with failry high testosterone levels. I am like that to a large degree although I have other traits as well. She and most feminist completely fail to understand such traits in a reasonable way.

    Aggressive drive is interperated as anger motivated or ill intent. Which it most certainly is not. I use aggressive drive when I want to achieve something and when I focus. I use it when I spar in martial arts. And when I use it like that trying to knock out a friend I am sparing with I have no ill feelings towards him I only wish him well. This aggressive drive if you see it as imoral gets not turned of but turned inward where it becomes depression and self loathing and anger towards oneself. It tends to reassert itself as passive aggressiveness and I belive is largely responsible for the snarkiness of feminist men. Once it does boil over and start turning itself outward again THEN it has ill intent.

    Being stoic is also a positive masculine trait. Feminists think this means repressing emotions but it does not. It means being able to remain calm and composed AT THE SAME TIME as you are experiencing strong emotion. It means having a still center within a storm. For me that is quite natural and to me it seems obvious when observing men that this is a strong tendency in most and more prevalent the more masculine they are in general. Women on the other hand (and more feminine men) tend more towards experiencing emotion in a way where they are fully outwardly embodying and expressing the emotion and sort of get caught in the emotion (being caught in the emotion is not meant by me as negative). When they look at masculine men (and more masculine women) they interperate what they see as repressing emotions because the men don`t get caught in the emotion like they do. They seem far to still and unexpressive. So something must be wrong. Because if a highly feminine person was still and unexpressive like that it would mean they held emotions in and tightened themselves up to remain composed because they are not able to do that any other way. So the misinterperation of male stoicism that feminism has and has spread to the rest of society stems from the projection the experience of feminist women (and some feminine men) onto men.

    The result of such projection of course is to try to feminize men as the logical conclusion is that these men holding back emotion must start to display evidence of processing emotion in a way these people find believable for them to be healthy. Which precisely what feminism has done and what feminists continuosly do and what I constantly see in feminist men and it is exactly what happened to me. The result of a man that is naturally masculine trying to process emotion in a feminine way is that he becomes dysfunctional and weak. Actually becoming like a feminine person and living that successfully does not work. I tried for years and it only made me miserable.

    Being competetive is not a negative trait either. It is a drive to achieve that has been responsible for much (most?) of human acomplishment. It is also fundamentally misunderstood by feminists. When men compete directly it is combined with a form of respect for the competitor and deference to whoever wins out at any given time that makes the competition also into a form of cooperation. All male groups form dominance hierarchies and these are based on respect for the skills that are deemed relevant and the personal strength (dominance) and leadership abilities of the men involved. Men constantly compete in these but they constantly form hierarchies based on the competition that leads to highly efficient cooperation. The competition drives the effort which in turn powers the effectiveness of the cooperation of the hierarchy.

    Women struggle to undestand these dynamics because they themselves feel much more threatened by clear hierarchies and direct competition in their female groups. Both those lead to hostility and the break down of competition in all woman groups. Women don`t understand how content men can be with a position that is not “equal” and they don`t understand the willingess of men to seamlessly (mostly) swap position and status and to seemingly fight the other in competition without it being seen as hostile but just a “part of the game” as men do. Womens groups cooperate overtly and punish outright direct competition and challenges but are full of indirect competition and challenges and have very clear hierarchies that are covered up and not made explicit or clear. So when feminists want cooperation what they want is feminine cooperation. That in turn means more feminisng of men and more shaping society ina one sided way to suit women, hence more matriarchy. It means EXTINGUISHING maleness. It is a form of psychological castration. And when they attack male competetiveness they are doing the same thing and are in fact showing that they do in fact find what men naturally are to be inherently evil and trying to extinguish it. Once again it is all about projection. The more I see feminism for what it is the more narcicism becomes the acurate diagnosis. How self absorped do you have to be to see the world in this manner and set out to extinguish what men naturally are.

    Dominance is not evil either. It basically means vying for leadership and authority and power. WHAT you do with that dominance is what makes it moral or immoral. You can combine the will to dominance as with and intention of shaping that which you have dominion over for good for those close to you as well as your self, you can include the wider society or the world or you can just aim for selfish gain. The will to excert power over the world and the people in it is a necessary drive that has benefited women indirectly, and which has been encouraged by women indirectly, since the begining of time. And nothing fires up a mans energy, willpower and drive and willingness to sacrifice if his quest for dominance is motivated by a higher purpose such as his women and children or a wider group of people or a divine power. The quest for dominance flows nicely with the competetive drive it is a brother of within the male hierarchical competetive cooperation structure.

    HeaterN and most feminists probably don`t even understand how integrity and principle, higher purpose and truth are essential masculine virtues and connected to all of the other things. Has any feminist theorist of note, except Paglia of course, celebrated or pointed out ANY masculine virtues?


    Clarke, M., Schedvin, N., 1999.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: