Attention: Christopher Booker
Re: Child protection system tears two more families apart, by Christopher Booker, 16 Jul 2011
The latest official figures show that the number of children being taken into care by social workers (now averaging more than 800 a month) has soared in the past two years by 41 per cent, to its highest ever level. In many of these cases, it seems that children are torn from their parents for no good reason, to such an extent that this has become one of the most disturbing scandals in our country today.
I read the article again, and it still bothers me. I have a lot of respect for Christopher Booker, the journalist who wrote it. Nevertheless, he is not an objective observer.
It is obvious that Christopher Booker cannot liberate himself from the father-hostile bias that decades of feminist indoctrination and strict adherence to the western chivalry code instilled in many but especially in many journalists whose expressions are constrained and formed by feminist censorship of the media organizations they write for.
The photo accompanying the article shows a mother and child, thereby invoking a subconscious image of the Madonna and Child. That is a deliberate choice, probably an editorial decision.
The article mentions the word “mother” 13 times, the word “father” only once (but only “the father of her youngest child”, not the father or fathers of the older two children of the mother), the word “family” (or families) twice, once in the heading and once in the text of the article, and the word “parents” four times.
The impression that leaves, of course, is that fathers don’t matter, that mothers do, that it is deplorable that the government should dare to violate the bond between a mother and child, and that the paternal feelings of fathers don’t matter, that fathers matter so little that they don’t even need to be mentioned.
Things get no better in the article in relation to what constitutes a family. A family only needs a mother and her child. That completes the Madonna-and-Child image. To introduce fathers into that sacred icon would spoil things, wouldn’t it now? It would diminish the appeal to the emotions over the pain of the mothers the article discusses and downplay their struggle against the excessive totalitarian force exercised against the mothers.
Sorry, Christopher Booker, as objective as you may feel you are, the feminist slip that very much influences your thinking and the way you express yourself is showing. If you don’t believe me, just check a few more of the articles you wrote on family issues. They are more akin to promoting a Madonna cult than objective commentaries that do justice to both sexes. I wonder why you do it; did you ever wonder about that? Did you ever feel the pain of having a child ripped from you? Believe me, if you were a father having that done to you, it would hurt very much, and it would matter not a whit whether it had been done by the government, the mother of the child or both in collusion.
One more thing, in relation to the observation in the article “that children are torn from their parents for no good reason, to such an extent that this has become one of the most disturbing scandals in our country today.” Don’t you find it odd that ever since the divorce epidemic began, children have been ripped from their fathers “on the flimsiest pretexts” and often with no excuses at all, and that that never raised the slightest concern with many, let alone apprehension that it might be scandalous?