National Coalition For Men

Mutilating Children Could Have Been Avoided The s*xual left is blamed for the mutilation of children in the name of trangenderism. But the estalishment right allowed it to happen.

ENCLOSURE

In his book, The Masculine Mystique: The Politics of Masculinity, author Andrew Kimbrell takes an in-depth look at a phenomenon known to academics as “enclosure.”
Enclosure is a complex concept with many and subtle implications, but, for our purposes, I’ll offer a simple definition: enclosure is the process by which land that was once open becomes cordoned off in a manner preventing free movement and common access.
In the Middle Ages, most of the land area was common land. A man and his family staked a personal claim to a small strip, sufficient to cultivate vegetables and with area enough to support subsistence livestock (a cow, a few pigs . . .). Also, during that period in history, women and men organized themselves into two interdependent teams that worked in tandem to best ensure each other’s survival.

“According to Verdier, only the women chose which animal was to be slaughtered. The men, however, set the day of slaughter. Both then went through dozens of interactions in the slaughtering process, ending with the women preparing the sausage while the men salted the lard.”

Men and women may have worked separately but they worked in an extremely coordinated and cooperative division of labor, their efforts directed toward a common goal. Together, a woman and a man commonly formed an independent collective that did not rely on the state for their livelihood.
But, over the centuries, many factors made it increasingly difficult for men and their families to be self-sufficient. “By the late eighteenth century millions of craftsmen and artisans in England and throughout Europe were beginning to see the degradation of their labor and the undermining of their families through the displacement of handcrafts by machines.” Slowly, incrementally, men began losing their raison d'être.
One consequence of enclosure was how it robbed peasant folk of their independence. Rather than work their plot of land and create tools and other necessities through their own craftsmanship, to stay alive, the lower classes were forced to become “wage-earners.”

“Thousands of destitute women and children sold their labor as a commodity and were employed in the new factories. Humans of all ages and both genders competed with one another for the scant wages being offered in the new industries. The numbing work and terrible conditions became public scandals.”

At first, enclosure was an equal-opportunity immiserator. Soon, however, the cruel exploitation of children put to work under such squalid and hazardous conditions became more than conscience could bear. Soon after that, women were granted the same exemption. Laws and policies were enacted to protect both the “women and children.” For example, “The Mines Act of 1842 stipulated that henceforth no children below the age of 10 would be sent to work in the mines. Also no girls or women of any age.” And that just leaves . . . men.
Historians J.L. Hammond and Barbara Hammond:

“All his auxiliary resources were taken from him, and he was now a wage earner and nothing more. Enclosure had robbed him of the strip that he tilled, of the cow that he kept on the village pasture, of the fuel he picked up in the wood, and of the turf of the commons.”

While women’s bodies give birth and nourish the young, the male body makes little or no unique contribution. Male physical strength became less and less valued. Aside from things like imprisonment, homelessness, and su***de, men have less and less with which to claim a collective identity. And the process of enclosure continues. Think how “enclosed” our “James Bond” is going to be when, like everyone else, he is carried about in a self-driven car. No wonder the words “redundant” and “obsolete” are so often used to describe men in our feminized world.
Loving men means having empathy toward men. And that means understanding the sources of male pain. It means lending men some understanding and compassion.

- Tim Goldich

The Twin Cities Chapter is at the Hopkins Raspberry Festival Marketplace.
Stop by and say hello!

How Liberal Women In Power Flip Society Upside Down THE RATIONAL MALE: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B09Y672QKPMOA MENTORING: https://m.moamentoring.com/3El26VRFull Video 🔗:SUBSTACK: https://rationalmale.substack...

JIMMY AND ROSALYNN, A LOVE STORY

Last year at this time Jimmy and Rosalynn celebrated their 77th wedding anniversary. Sadly, Rosalynn left us in November of 2023.

On July 4th Laura Hillenbrand wrote: "In 1927 in Plains, Georgia, a three-year-old boy named Jimmy Carter lived next door to an auto mechanic, Francis Smith, and his pregnant wife, Allie. That August, Allie went into labor, and Jimmy's mother, a nurse, helped deliver her daughter. The next day, little Jimmy went next door and peered into the crib. The baby inside was named Rosalynn.
As a teenager, ‘Rosie’ had a fierce crush on Jimmy, but he was three years older, and apparently took little notice of the shy kid next door. During WWII, he left town to join the Naval Academy. One day in the summer of 1945, Jimmy returned to Plains on vacation. While riding in the rumble seat of a friend's Ford, he looked toward the United Methodist church and saw Rosie, now seventeen and all grown up, standing out front. He was gobsmacked. Jimmy hopped out of the rumble seat and asked her to the movies. She jumped right in. He came home that night and told his mother that the baby she'd delivered seventeen years earlier was the girl he was going to marry.”

Today would have been Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter's 78th wedding anniversary. They had the longest marriage in presidential history. At the time of Rosalynn’ death they had known each other for almost one hundred years.

I created Gender Equalism in large part as an antidote to feminism's "heterophobia" (I don't know a better word for it). Where feminism seethes with envy, bitterness, resentment, victim, vengeance and self-righteousness, equalism seeks only inter-s*x unity, fairness and forgiveness.

I defy anyone out there to explain to me what catastrophe could ensue should Woman and Man agree to call it even and move on? Free of feminism’s one-sided, false, and poisonous ManBad (the “over-empowered oppressor”), WomanGood (the “innocent victim”) moral polarity, both gender politics and gender relations would be free to evolve beyond feminism’s inter-s*x hostility. Gender Equalism only seeks to love each s*x equally and respect each s*x equally, to offer each s*x equal empathy and equal accountability.

Enough already with the Glass Escalators that would FORCE female-ONLY “equality.” Let equal opportunity on an even playing field lead to equilibrium. Enough already with feminism’s war on heteros*xuality. Enough with all the inter-s*x paranoia. I want a world in which a “gobsmacked” young man can be brashly heteros*xual without fear or shame that he may boldly jump out of a car, run up and ask her to the movies without fear of being ruined by an accusation of Sexual Harassment.

- Tim Goldich

The Twin Cities Chapter is at the
Andover Family Fun Fest.
Stop by and say hello!

Gender Political Spirituality; With Tim Goldich Slam the Gavel welcomes back author, Tim Goldich to the podcast. Tim was last on Season 4; Episodes 32, 58, 80, 120 and 149 and Season 5; Episodes 24, 48 and...

https://www.youtube.com/live/UuGqtuFeJ4w?si=JIRuA7ZcowshWYoD

What It Means When a Borderline or Narcissistic Woman Says, "I Feel Unsafe"? In this video, I delve into the manipulative tactics used by narcissistic, borderline, and histrionic women when they say, 'I feel unsafe.' I explore how thi...

AMERICAN INDEPENDENCE

Happy 4th of July!

Feminists deeply resent men receiving the lion’s share of the prestige, but that’s what society has offered men in exchange for their relative disposability. When Thomas Jefferson wrote: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,” it was an astonishing leap forward in human social evolution. Never before in the history of the world had such a vision of equality been proposed. If he was giving men the nod, what never, ever occurs to us is that this extra prestige may well have been just compensation for all the extra suffering men endured. Such a thought may be blasphemous within a feminist-dictated belief system, but where exactly is the logical flaw in it?

“It was we, the people; not we, the white male citizens; nor yet we, the male citizens; but we, the whole people, who formed the Union,” proclaimed Susan B. Anthony sounding righteous as God. Yes, both s*xes wanted to be free of British monarchical rule. But it was we the men, not we the people who bore the brunt, suffered and died to make it happen. Only men trod bleeding, barefoot, and starving through the four-foot snow at Valley Forge.

“Washington led his half-clad army of eleven thousand men about the middle of December, 1777. As the men marched to this retreat their route could be traced in the snow by the blood that had oozed from broken shoes. On reaching the place they found it shelterless, and for two weeks they toiled in the bitter weather, building huts in which to spend the winter. Many were without blankets, and had to sit by the fire all night to keep from freezing. Washington informed Congress, on December 23, that he had in camp 2,898 men “unfit for duty because they are barefoot, and otherwise naked.” The rudely built hospitals were soon crowded with the sick and dying. Some died for want of straw to make a bed on the frozen ground, others for want of sufficient nourishment. “The unfortunate soldiers were in want of everything,” wrote Lafayette years afterward; “they had neither coats, hats, shirts, nor shoes, their feet and legs froze till they became black, and it was often necessary to amputate them.” Thus that long and dreary winter was spent by the patriots who won for us the independence of America.”

“In the six months in Valley Forge they faced starvation and illness that claimed an estimated 3,000 men.” That’s 3,000 men and no women. “On June 12, 1778 the Continental Army marched out of Valley Forge to engage the British army with a new born American spirit that led to victory.” (navysite.de). For which these men were duly honored. Naturally, female-ists would have males receive nothing for their extra struggles, suffering and sacrifice. But What else would we expect of female-ists?

At the end of episode V of the PBS documentary Liberty! The American Revolution (2004), common foot soldier Joseph Plum Martin is quoted: “By now everyone’s heard of the old story of the soldiers trekking the blood of their feet on the frozen ground. It literally happened. But you don’t know the thousandth part of how we suffered. You never can.” Indeed, it may be the very incomprehensibleness of male suffering at its extremes that contributes to our apparent ease of ignoring it.

Do I make it sound like men are the victims? Well feminists, I’m willing to call it even if you are; what do you say?

- Tim Goldich

The Economist invites us to: “Meet the incels and anti-feminists of Asia: They threaten to make the region’s demographic decline even worse”

Involuntary celibates are not the problem. Feminism is the problem, “incels” are a byproduct of that problem, and anti-feminists are all that stands in the way of feminism’s ideological dictatorship. What’s the problem with feminism? It’s half of gender reality; the MalePower/FemaleVictimization HALF of gender reality presented, and *demanded* to be accepted, as if it were gender reality in its entirety.

Well, I find this article frustratingly self-contradicting. It assumes that feminism is righteous even as it makes crystal clear the correlation between feminism and the erosion of gender relations. Like all other sources, it measures gender "equality" solely in terms of female equality, never male equality. It tacitly acknowledges the vast inequality of men throughout the s*xual, dating, and domestic realms—‘“When it comes to dating, women overwhelmingly have decision-making power,’ says Horike Takeshi, a 25-year-old Japanese man who has never had a girlfriend.” Takeshi is right, female power is enormous! “He identifies as a ‘weak man’ because of his low income and lack of s*x appeal to women.” NO, he is judged a “weak man” because his income, compared against women’s income, isn’t enough to pass the Qualifying Round. Thus, low income and lack of s*x appeal are pretty much one and the same. The article’s sole focus is on the wrongs of "pay-gap" and "glass ceiling" (the validity of which is never questioned), even as its own data overwhelmingly indicates that what little remains of the so-called "pay-gap" might be all that remains of heteros*xuality.

Why is "INCEL" a thing now where it never was before?
1) In the past, women felt pressure to pair off with men, get married, and have children. So, the far majority of women had to forgo "Chad." Average women had to "settle" for their own male equivalent. Thus, fewer men got shut out.
2) In the past, men, way less-than in the s*xual arena, were allowed to compensate. Even a man stuck in "middle management" still looked like "husband material" in the eyes of a "waitress." As women rose educationally and economically (surpassing men), it has only upped the bar for what it takes a man to be deemed "eligible."
3) The problem isn’t women rising; the problem is “female-ism” advantaging females and sabotaging males (starting all the way back in preschool). The problem is the worldwide mandate to EMPOWER WOMEN!—while the magnitude of female modes of power remains denied. By female-imposed necessity, males are biologically predisposed to perform, achieve, and succeed their way into having what women are EMPOWERED to demand of them. That’s what feminist society calls the “pay-gap.” When society circumvents biology, thwarting male education, drive, and ambition, a vast percentage of men get shut out of physical and emotional intimacy, love, marriage, and parenting.

Women also suffer the inter-s*x Cold War. But, women can get intimacy from each other, share “Chad,” and go to s***m banks.

"The rise in anti-feminist sentiment bodes badly for the region’s birth rates." My mind boggles. How could feminism’s “ManBad, the over-empowered oppressor/WomanGood, the innocent victim” ever hope to bring about inter-s*x unity, fairness, or forgiveness? Given that feminist gender politics ALWAYS precedes and creates a wedge between the s*xes, how can opposing it bode badly? I think the ONLY hope for gender relations (including birth rates) lies in replacing "female-ism" with a new gender-neutral gender politics and gender ideology.

- Tim Goldich

To read the article, click the link:
https://archive.ph/IQWXf -1227.0-1227.77

The Twin Cities Chapter is at the Blaine Festival
Saturday and Sunday.
Stop by and say hello!

We're a diverse and friendly group of people. So, don't be shy; come on in and say hello!
NCFM-Chicago Monthly Open Zoom Meeting
Time: Jun 30, 2024 10:30 AM Central Time (US and Canada)
At the proper time, just click the link. Join Zoom Meeting:
https://zoom.us/j/97485959534?pwd=SW5HVWk3NmNMd0cxUjJHdlpDdHpnQT09

Meeting ID: 974 8595 9534
Passcode: 622291

---

One tap mobile
+13092053325,,97485959534 #,,,,*622291 # US
+13126266799,,97485959534 #,,,,*622291 # US (Chicago)

---

Dial by your location
• +1 309 205 3325 US
• +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago)
• +1 646 931 3860 US
• +1 929 436 2866 US (New York)
• +1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC)
• +1 305 224 1968 US
• +1 386 347 5053 US
• +1 507 473 4847 US
• +1 564 217 2000 US
• +1 669 444 9171 US
• +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose)
• +1 689 278 1000 US
• +1 719 359 4580 US
• +1 253 205 0468 US
• +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma)
• +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston)
• +1 360 209 5623 US

Meeting ID: 974 8595 9534
Passcode: 622291

Find your local number: https://zoom.us/u/aermkDxYgt

I’m 35 Years Old and Never Had a Girlfriend Before Hey Knowbodies! Today I’m talking about how I am 35 years old and never had a girlfriend before in my life. That’s right, I have never been in a relationship...

From our friend Janice Fiamengo (interviewing Dr. Hannah Spier), here's more on the subject of feminism's psychological and spiritual harm to women.

https://fiamengofile.substack.com/p/feminism-and-female-psychopathology

Men are the targets, but feminist ideology harms women also.

"Women Say They Have Been Misled and Betrayed by Feminist Ideology"

And they're right.

“Men have sacrificed for women and children—including their lives—for thousands of years,” says Camille Paglia. “This sick portrayal of human history as nothing but male oppression and female victimage, this is a way to permanently ensure the infantilization of women.” I think the truest victimization of women begins with a withhold of accountability, which is indeed infantilizing. It is a withhold of respect—respect for women’s power, weaponry, efficacy, and equal partnership in the human system. It’s drowning women in sympathy (“poor thing”). It is relentlessly telling women that they are the powerless victims in all things, which is emotionally self-fulfilling—and it is living a lie. It’s telling women that All Fault Is Male, which instills poisonous self-righteousness. It’s telling women that a Boogey-man hides behind every bush, which is terrifying. It’s falsifying women’s legacy as nothing more than “property and chattel.” And it is telling women that their biology only betrays them, causing women to low-prioritize marriage, home, family; limiting women’s immersion within roles and realms in which many are at their happiest. It is the world of women that feminism has shamed, disparaged and diminished. Given all the above, it’s no wonder that, worldwide, the most feminist cultures produce the least happy women.

- Tim Goldich

It's good to see that others are also getting wise to all this:
https://endtodv.org/pr/women-say-they-have-been-misled-and-betrayed-by-feminist-ideology/?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

It can be too tempting to focus on and write about the gender-political atrocity of the week. But this is where my heart is.

GENDER EQUALISM: THE FOUR QUADRANTS

The empathy toward men interpretation
The empathy toward women interpretation
The male accountability interpretation
The female accountability interpretation

Given fifty years of feminist ideological dominance, Gender Equalism is often content to focus on the facts and truths of female power and male victimization—the gender truths that are missing. We remain equalist, however, by presenting these facts and truths as the other half of gender reality—the facts and truths that go on the other end of a metaphorical balance beam.
Gender Equalism differs from either feminism or masculism in its earnest attempt to be gender-neutral and seek balance with the ultimate goal of Woman and Man “calling it even.” To that end, here’s one “formula” that sets equalism apart. A thorough Gender Equalist analysis must address gender issues from each of the four quadrants listed above.

Several years ago, feminist author Jessica Valenti wrote:
"What's the worst possible thing you can call a woman? Don't hold back, now. You're probably thinking of words like slut, w***e, bitch, c**t (I told you not to hold back!), skank. Okay, now, what are the worst things you can call a guy? Fag, girl, bitch, p***y. I've even heard the term "mangina." Notice anything? The worst thing you can call a girl is a girl. The worst thing you can call a guy is a girl. Being a woman is the ultimate insult. Now tell me that's not royally fu**ed up."

Valenti’s interpretation is founded on the feminine-ist assumption that “men have the power and women are the victims.” I think we can be more balanced than that. I’ll choose this issue as an example with which to demonstrate an equalist approach to this and other gender issues in general:

The Empathy Toward Men Interpretation: For the truly progressive, this is an exciting quadrant because there’s new information here. Here we go against the cultural grain, which is why this interpretation is largely missing (which is why there’s new information in it). Society may squirm when asked to acknowledge male pain and vulnerability, even so, we’ll begin by asking, is “p***y” truly the worst, most hurtful thing you can call a man? How about “loser” or “creep” or “r**ey” or “deadbeat” or “coward” or “misogynist” or “toxic”? Let’s also consider the male dilemma. Girls become women automatically, while manhood must be achieved. Females give birth, conferring an innate value and unique contribution. To compensate, males pay, pursue and persist, protect and provide. Because male homos*xuality implies women left unprotected and not provided for, society has come down extra hard on male homos*xuals—in the distant past they were burned at the stake. As late as the 1970s, Male homos*xuality (“sodomy”) was labeled a pathology and a crime! Under the circumstances we may forgive men their “homophobia.” And we may empathize with the traditional male’s obligation to purge all femininity lest he or his friends be “suspect.”

Note also that “you p***y!” is an intra-s*x taunt one man directs at another within the world of men. A woman may overhear it and become offended, but, as seen from an empathy-toward-men perspective, it has nothing to do with her. Men who deride the feminine within themselves nonetheless worship that femininity when displayed by a woman.

Finally, the “mangina” is a feminist man who comes to women’s rescue—right or wrong. With empathy toward men, we can understand men’s hostility toward he who throws his fellow man “under the bus.” Some chivalrous men would sooner see men hung by their balls than suffer the sight of a woman with a furrowed brow—such a man may indeed be regarded a “mangina”!
Because there’s so much new information in this quadrant, we must leave it incomplete for now.

The Empathy Toward Women Interpretation: Our task is to progress from feminine-ism to a gender-neutral outlook. To do that, we have a lot of bias to overcome. As compared with men, women are like empathy magnets. Consider the multibillion dollar global feminist obsession with female rights, advancement, health, safety, and wellbeing. On the one hand there is feminism and on the other hand there is . . . nothing. Even a dubious women’s issue like “gender-based pricing” (women paying more for shoes that cost more to manufacture) receives greater cultural attention and outrage than men being 12 times as likely to die on the job. This greater power to elicit empathy has raised only female concerns to the level of major societal concerns. Declared the “powerless victims” in all things, we’re convinced that female pain is SO special, it’s deserving of virtually all empathy—leaving men bereft of empathy. So, from the politicized male perspective, it’s frankly galling to slather even more empathy upon women. But this is a gender-political bias that has no place in Gender Equalism. As equalists, we’re equally obligated to all four quadrants.

From an empathy-toward-women perspective, we see that women have always been more loved, but less respected than men. This lack of respect toward women is the central female wound and the primary source of feminist outrage. And that lack of respect toward women does indeed show up in men’s derision of feminine males. It’s something men need to look at. Valenti’s pain surrounding lack of respect is valid. Gender Equalism would continue to address any and all women’s issues; it just wouldn’t address women’s issues exclusively.

The Male Accountability Interpretation: Everyone applauds men Manning-Up and taking Full Responsibility! So, again, this quadrant is everywhere represented and emphasized really all out of proportion. Even so, as Gender Equalists, we’re obligated to all four quadrants.

From a holding-men-accountable perspective, we see that Valenti’s observation is valid. Men do indeed insult the feminine when they denigrate it in themselves and in other men. Because both s*xes feel both superior and inferior to their opposite s*x, this male tendency does reflect a measure of male chauvinism. She’s right, part of what’s going on when men are intolerant of the feminine displayed by men is a judgment that the feminine is “weak” and “silly” and beneath a man. So, rather than operate out of denial (which gets us nowhere), the equalist holds men accountable for their part in gender issues.

Unlike blame, accountability is not about casting shaming judgments. Accountability is like medicine; it tastes bad but it’s good for us. Because it’s good for us and because it is ultimately empowering, accountability can be viewed as a gift one person gives another. Holding Man accountable as an autonomous adult conveys respect. Withholding accountability is infantilizing.

The Female Accountability Interpretation: We end as we began with an interpretation that goes against the grain—the two perspectives that are missing. Here again, for the truly progressive, this is an exciting quadrant because there’s new information here. That new information consists of the facts and truths of FemalePower—and male vulnerability to that power. Resistance to those facts and truths runs deep and shows up as: “Patriarchy victimizes both s*xes.” In other words: “Men bear all and women bear none of the responsibility for outcomes.” I hope, someday, we’ll view gender issues as matters of shared responsibility, but first there are a few hurdles to jump. If an understanding of Woman and Man as equal partners exerting an equal overall force of influence, equally responsible for outcomes is the goal, then admittance of the truths of female shadow, female power and female abuse of power remains the final hurdle.

As is true of each of us as individuals, Woman and Man often act as their own worst enemies, largely responsible for creating their own predicaments. In addition, there is the Wheel of Complicity in which Man plies a force of influence upon Woman and, in turn, Woman plies an equal force of influence upon Man. As is true of Man, to hold Woman accountable is to respect Woman. Withholding accountability is infantilizing.

Men do indeed denigrate the feminine in each other, but they do not do this in a vacuum. The female complicity here involves abuse of women’s greater powers to elicit empathy and inflict shame. Woman’s part in all this begins with staking out her female territory and then using shame to keep men out of her territory. “Man Up,” “Be a man about it!” says Woman. As seen from the female-accountability-interpretation, in purging the feminine, Man is just following orders. Mothers also exert a force of influence in these matters. To comply with Woman’s demands, men will need to replace vulnerability (“femininity”) with a deep ego investment and obligation for toughness, strength, and courage. And that will result in a measure of male chauvinist pride in their “superior” toughness, strength, and courage. In this, and in countless other ways, Woman plies her force of influence in the human system.

There’s much more to say in this quadrant. The fourth quadrant is going to be the most challenging largely because it involves FemalePower, the best kept secret and the single least well understood aspect of gender reality. To present the truths of FemalePower (and male vulnerability to that power), we can’t rely on common knowledge—often, we will need to start from scratch.

Exploring empathy toward men and accountability toward women goes against the grain, and we are apt to get “triggered.” But it helps to bear in mind that gender reality is mirrored. Within gender reality there is much pain and injustice. There are double-binds and double-standards and abuses of power and vast misunderstandings. But, as Gender Equalists, we know that in the final analysis,
It All Balances Out.

So, looking at gender issues from each of the four quadrants is one of the ways Gender Equalism may produce equalist analyses that are fair, balanced, and constructive.

- Tim Goldich

“MY KIDS DON’T NEED A FATHER”

“Naomi Campbell Faces Backlash for Saying Her Kids Don’t Need a Father After Becoming a Single Mother of Two, By Parker Diakite”

“Campbell, who is 54 and a self-proclaimed single mom, told The Times UK in an interview that her children don’t need a father because her mother, who was a ‘single mom and had nothing’ and ‘made it work.”’

Hmm, so fatherlessness has become a proud family tradition? It would seem that the same old misandry toward fathers remains; yet something is new here.

Back in 1992, then Vice President Dan Quayle became a laughing stock when he criticized “Murphy Brown” (a TV character played by Candice Bergen).
“Quayle argued that the character fostered lax family values by ‘mocking the importance of fathers, by bearing a child alone, and calling it just another lifestyle choice.’ The statement drew an incredible amount of mocking from the news and entertainment media.”

But now, some of that mocking has reversed.

“My babies are everything to me,” says Campbell. Yet she will deprive them of a father. “It’s made me fear for the future,” she told the outlet. “I hope for a better world for my children.” And a better world is a fatherless world? Now that fatherlessness has become epidemic, we can’t help but notice the startling correlation between the decline of fatherhood and rise of every social pathology that concerns us most in the world today. Naomi has good reason to fear that fatherless future. And she herself is contributing to it.

Of course some women are single mothers by necessity (i.e. the father dies, the mother’s left alone to raise the children). And such single mothers deserve all due respect and support. But, unlike 1992, the notion now exists that mothers who are single by choice—especially if they’ve actively alienated the father—are guilty of child abuse.

Fathers’ and men’s groups have been ringing alarms for decades. And, at least as compared with 1992, fathers are now widely acknowledged to make an important, even vital, contribution to society in general and children’s lives, wellbeing, and personal success in particular. So . . .

Happy Father’s Day everybody!

- Tim Goldich

https://atlantablackstar.com/2024/06/13/single-mom-naomi-campbell-says-her-kids-dont-need-a-father/?utm_term=Autofeed&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook =1718364378