Fathers for Life
Fatherlessness, the lack of natural fathers in children's lives
| Home | In The News | Our Blog | Contact Us | Share

Fathers for Life Site-Search

Site Map (very large file)
Table of Contents
Children—Our most valued assets?
Educating Our Children for the Global Gynarchia
Child Support
Civil Rights & Social Issues
Family Law
Destruction of Families
Divorce Issues
Domestic Violence
Gay Issues
Hate, Hoaxes and Propaganda
Help Lines for Men
Law, Justice and The Judiciary
Mail to F4L
Men's Issues
The Politics of "Sex"
Our Most Popular Pages
Email List
References - Bibliography

You are visitor

since June 19, 2001




It Takes a Village … 

It Takes A Village

It takes a village (so we're told), to raise a child today.
It takes a village (we reply), to steal his heart away,
To purge old-fashioned do's and don'ts from his enlightened mind,
To leave old fashioned Ma and Pa a hundred years behind.

It takes a village, verily, to teach some mother's son,
To steal and gamble, smoke and swear, and vandalize for fun.
His mother didn't teach him that!  His father?  No, not he.
It takes a village to corrupt, a village, verily.

It takes a village, this we know, to teach the maidens sweet,
To dress and act, to look and talk, like women of the street.
It takes a village, not a doubt, to teach a maiden mild,
To save the monkeys, owls, and whales, and kill her unborn child.

It takes a village public school, some subtle classroom chats,
To teach the little boys and girls to act like alley cats.
To teach them of the birds and bees, without morality,
To teach them what to do, and how, and tell them they are free.

It takes a village, yes indeed, to brainwash all the youth,
With notions and with fallacies, In place of sense and truth.
Abortion rights!  The right to die!  The rights of animals!
Creative spelling!  Unisex!  The rights of criminals!

It takes a village, well we know, to turn their minds away,
To stand for fancied "children's rights", and parents' rights deny.
To honor human nature less, And trees and rivers more.
To sacrifice to Mother Earth, and Father God ignore.

"It takes a village," so they say, but something more they mean.
United Nations.  Washington.  The liberal machine.
Society.  The "Brave New World."  The socialistic scheme.
The global ideology.  The New World Order dream!

Glenn Conjurske

Just in case you wondered how it could happen that our society turned away from the moral standards that were the foundation based on which our country became great but is great no longer, it took:
  • Intentional straying from The Ten Commandments to make a society turn away from God,

  • A Village to make it possible by actively participating in that and to allow:

  • Anti-Christian Governments to cause it to happen. (E. g., the circumstances of the memorial service for the victims of the crash of Swissair Flight 111: "Christ's name banned from memorial service").

Incongruously, the current Canadian Prime Minister is ostensibly a Roman Catholic.

Follow-up (2005 01 26)

The successor of that prime minister is ostensibly a Roman Catholic, too.  Yet he is ready to make an election issue out of the Canadian Conservative Party's opposition to his intention to ram through parliament — at any cost — legislation that will make same-sex marriages legal and the norm by which we measure all others. 

Editorial cartoon in the Fort Record (2005 01 25, p. 2)

Access TV is the Alberta Athabasca University's channel by which it transmits some of its education programs, some of which broadcasts are part of its curriculum and can be applied to obtain credits for some of its correspondence courses.  Just on the night of the 25th of January, 2005, the Athabasca University transmitted such a program on family issues.

It was quite obvious, after watching the program only for a couple of minutes, what its aim was.  The program was not so much a program on family issues but one to promote same-sex marriages.   The program had been produced by the CBC, with Hanna Gartner being the narrator and sole interviewer. 

For the first 20 minutes of the program, not a single married couple in a traditional family was interviewed.  All that was presented were representatives of aberrational families, single mothers.  To be fair, there were also a few single dads, but all of the single parents were single by choice, some through the circumstances of divorce.  A lesbian couple in the process of getting married was presented as well.  All of them were made out to be the new norm in society.  It was shown what the problems were that faced them, the struggle of balancing work with caring for children, the problems arising out of an inadequate single income, the costs of daycare, and more.  The overriding message was that this now was the new reality, that the anachronism of the traditional nuclear, two-parent, single-income earner family had been successfully replaced with the new reality, and that even in two-parent families there were now 70 percent that had two income earners, simply on account of the necessities arising out of the fact that the average family income had not changed from its $43,000 per year since about 1984

A few important things were not shown or discussed.  It was not explained that the purchasing power of a $43,000 income is now substantially less than what it was in 1984, of which, moreover, now a substantially higher portion has to be paid in taxes.  It was mentioned that the deductions for child expenses that once-upon-a-time could be made of a taxable income had vanished, along with the universal family allowance.  It was not explained that the increasingly more and more inadequate purchasing power of the average family income is entirely the result of deliberately family-hostile government policies.

The program did not show a single male gay couple with children.  I can't blame Hanna Gartner too much for that.  Such couples are exceedingly hard to find.  They are very rare in Canada, much more rare than even the rare instances of lesbian couples with children.  However, Hanna Gartner did not even gloss over that very important omission.  She was much, much too busy promoting the new reality of aberrational families being the norm.

She could have mentioned that Canada has about 3,000 same-sex "families" with children. (1) Most of the children involved in such "families" were born into heterosexual families that later ended in separation and divorce, and about 2,500 of same-sex "families" with children are headed by lesbian couples.  She could have asked the man at the source of that information, right in her program.  She extensively and repeatedly interviewed him during the course of her program, Robert Glossop, of the Vanier Institute of the Family.

To the credit of Hanna Gartner, she asked Robert Glossop about whether there is anything at all about the traditional nuclear two-parent family that would make it a better and preferred alternative for the upbringing of children.

Instead of answering that question and to corroborate his answer with hard and cold facts, Robert Glossop nimbly side-stepped it and engaged himself in a warm-hearted tirade about the new social reality that the traditional nuclear family is now more or less a thing of the past, and that therefore we have an obligation to concentrate on the task at hand to make people that wish to experiment with alternative life-styles but wish to raise children loved, liked and welcomed in our brave new world.  He didn't put it exactly into those words, but he said that it was our social responsibility to welcome all comers that no longer wish to adhere to the standards that once were the norm.

Robert Glossop could have shown that the escalating epidemic of divorce is closely connected to the escalation of juvenile crime rates, child poverty, enormously increasing rates of fetal alcohol syndrome in newly-born children, catastrophically increasing social and medical costs for the treatment of such children (the costs of that now exceed the cost of the national debt), let alone the costs of government-sponsored daycare programs for children and welfare for single moms that have trouble paying for daycare out of their minimum wage incomes and therefore have little choice but to live on government handouts.

Robert Glossop has all of that information right at his fingertips, but he mentioned none of it.  Hanna Gartner did not even mention to him that he had evaded giving her an appropriate answer to her question.  Nevertheless, given the drift of her program and the fact that it had been carefully scripted and edited, there is no doubt in my mind that all she had wanted was to get the answer that Robert Glossop gave her, and that he dutifully complied.

Why did Robert Glossop not read his answer right from a report published by the Vanier Institute for the Family?  He had his answer well-memorized.  If he would have read it verbatim, his answer would have been little different:

...at the civil level, in individualistic, democratic societies such as Canada and the U.S., everyone is entitled to his or her religion and moral beliefs about family life. Except for abusing one's children or one's partner, or practicing polygamy, liberal individualistic democracies ensure individuals' rights to live their lives and establish their relationships according to their personal beliefs. But this democratic right of individuals as family members also presumes an obligation: the tolerance of the different ways and values of other families, and this includes same-sex-parent families and couples. (2)

We must remember here that as of now the right that Robert Glossop assigns to same-sex-parent families and couples is nothing of the sort.  The Supreme Court of Canada refused to rule on it, and Parliament, although it decided once before that there shall be no such right, is to vote on it one more time, perhaps as many times as necessary, until Paul Martin, our prime minister, gets the answer he wishes to receive, or, alternatively, until he and his party are voted out of office. 
    Let us also remember that Paul Martin was the finance minister during much of the time during which increasingly more and more punitive taxation became a big part of the new Canadian reality for our families.

Of course, in addition to harried parents with jobs and children, Hanna Gartner had to illustrate also what life is like in a family that represents the anachronism that the CBC's social engineering wishes to do away with, a traditional nuclear family — Christian, one income earner, stay-at home mom (who had foregone a career as a lawyer so she could engage herself in home schooling her four children, so that the state would not get the opportunity to indoctrinate them), and a father earning $75,000 a year (no word on what his take-home pay actually is), a father who said prayers at dinner time and whose kids cheerfully bade him "bye Dad" when he left for work, with his wife struggling to get the kids dressed. 

In Hanna Gartner's illuminating liberal commentary, that family properly came across as a religious right-wing extremist family.  The family lives in Calgary, Alberta.  We would not want to have the CBC admit that families like that exist in every Canadian province in far greater numbers than lesbian "families" with children do.  After all, those traditional families are not the norm that the CBC, our government or the Vanier Institute of the Family wish to establish.

One of the single mothers interviewed on the program expressed the thought that she very strongly believes in the concept that it takes a village to raise children, that it is the responsibility of a community to help single mothers with that.  One quarter of her income goes towards paying for daycare for her single daughter that she conceived with a man that had a motor-cycle accident in which he got brain-damaged (upon which she apparently no longer had any use for him in her life).

Let's never forget that the woman expressed, in different words, precisely the very sentiments that Marx and Engels expressed in their writings and in the Manifesto of the Communist Party that they co-authored in 1847/48.

The bourgeois marriage is in reality the community of the wives.  One could at best accuse the communists that (43) instead of a hypocritical, hidden one, they want to introduce an official, open-hearted women's community (44).  Furthermore, it goes without saying that with the abolition of the present circumstances of production the women's community that results from it, that is, official and unofficial prostitution, will vanish as well.

The communists have been accused, furthermore, that they want to abolish the fatherland, the national identity.  The workers don't have a fatherland.  It isn't possible to rob them of what they don't have.  Because the proletariat must first of all conquer political rule, elevate itself to a national class (45), constitute itself as a nation, it will itself be national, even though by no means in the meaning of the bourgeoisie.... [3]

....Then it will be plain that the first condition for the liberation of the wife is to bring the whole female sex back into public industry [that is, make women part of the labour force --WHS] and that this in turn demands the abolition of the monogamous family as the economic unit of society....
....In any case, therefore, the position of men will be very much altered. But the position of women, of all women, also undergoes significant change. With the transfer of the means of production into common ownership, the single family ceases to be the economic unit of society. Private housekeeping is transformed into a social industry. The care and education of the children becomes a public affair; society looks after all children alike, whether they are legitimate or not. This removes all the anxiety about the “consequences,” which today is the most essential social – moral as well as economic – factor that prevents a girl from giving herself completely to the man she loves. Will not that suffice to bring about the gradual growth of unconstrained sexual intercourse and with it a more tolerant public opinion in regard to a maiden’s honor and a woman’s shame? And, finally, have we not seen that in the modern world monogamy and prostitution are indeed contradictions, but inseparable contradictions, poles of the same state of society? Can prostitution disappear without dragging monogamy with it into the abyss? [4]

According to Engels, the positions of men and women would be significantly changed if society adheres to and implements his prescription for a better society, the socialist state.  That is exactly what we have done and what institutions like our government and the CBC are promoting.  Then the CBC, as directed by taxpayer-funded social engineers in government and other institutions, can produce programs such as that re-broadcast by Access TV to educate us in the need for adapting our lives to the consequences of that calamitous social engineering.

It appears to be of no concern to anyone that the USSR came into existence on the foundation of the Communist Manifesto and Engels' prescription, that consequentially it collapsed catastrophically, and that Canada and all other developed nations that adopted Marx's and Engels' deadly cure for societies and civilizations that aren't broken to begin with exhibit strong signs of approaching their catastrophic demise now as well.

After writing about Hanna Gartner's and Robert Glossop's efforts to contribute what they can to the destruction of the last remnants of the once-thriving Canadian traditional nuclear families, the foundation of a once-thriving society, I must wonder what turn the CBC National's program on family issues would have taken if at its core would not have been the effort to sugar-coat the sad realities of our brave new world but to tell it as it is told in the poem "It Takes a Village", at the beginning of this page.

Shame on Hanna Gartner, the CBC, Robert Glossop, Access TV and Athabasca University for not doing that.

However, there is still hope.


Men speak and dream a lot
of better, coming days;
after an auspicious, golden goal
one can see them running and chasing.
The world grows old and then grows young again,
yet Man hopes always for improvement.

Hope leads man into life,
and it flutters about the cheerful boy.
The young man is enraptured by its magic shine;
it is not buried with the gray-haired old man,
for although his weary run ends in the grave,
he still plants by his grave - Hope.

It is no empty, flattering delusion
created in the minds of fools.
In the heart it proclaims itself loudly:
"We were born for better!"
And that which the inner voice proclaims
will not mislead the hoping soul.

Translation from German to English copyright © by Emily Ezust
Based on a text in German by Friedrich von Schiller (1759-1805)
Found at: http://www.recmusic.org/lieder/get_text.html?TextId=14499

  1.  Quoted from a report published by the Vanier Institute of the Family:

What is more relevant to our discussion below is the 2000 U.S. Census estimate that 1% of all couples sharing a household (married + cohabiting) are same-sex ones and the 2001 Canadian census estimate of a prevalence of 0.5% (Statistics Canada, 2002). It is likely that these proportions are somewhat higher in reality. Thus, it is among this 1% of the couple population that we will find those [homosexuals] who will be seeking marriage and parenthood.

Furthermore, the 1990 U.S. census revealed that about 22% of households headed by lesbian couples had a child under 18 compared to 6% of those headed by gay partners (Black et al., 2000). In Canada, the 2001 census revealed that 15% of households headed by lesbian couples had children versus 3% among male same-sex households (Statistics Canada, 2002). Again, these numbers probably underestimate the situation to some extent. Moreover, these data omit lesbigays who are single (not partnered) and have a child living with them and those who are married heterosexually and have a child or children living with them. Black et al. estimate that over 28% of all lesbians and 14% of all gays have children living with them. Still, these numbers omit lesbigays whose ex-spouse has custody of their child or children following a divorce.....

The exact number of children living with two homosexual parents is not known. What we know from the 2001 census is that at least 3,000 same-sex couples are raising children in Canada today. A majority of these children were born to a mother-father unit [see, it's no longer a traditional nuclear family --WHS] that ended in divorce and the lesbian or gay parent obtained custody. Thus, a majority of these children have another parent who is heterosexual and, presumably, a good proportion of the children remain in contact with this parent. In addition, other homosexuals have children from a previous marriage and these children are in the custody of the non-gay parent....

  1. Same-Sex Couples and Same-Sex-Parent Families: Relationships, Parenting, and Issues of Marriage, by Dr. Anne-Marie Ambert (2003); Vanier Institute of the Family: Questions of morality and religion (the last paragraph of that section of the report)
  2. The Communist Manifesto, by Marx and Engels
  3. Friedrich Engels' 1884 paper in which "The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State" is rolled out.

2001 02 11 (format changes)