Tag Archives: Ivor Catt

Radical Feminism, the ‘Commentariat’ and Curriculum Transformation in the UK

Ivor Catt, January 2005

The Government has failed to offer families a (divorce) system that works. You have to start by bringing the judges, experts and stakeholders on board to agree what sort of orders the Courts should make. That way, you know what you’re trying to deliver. Then you build a legal system to deliver it. The Government never did its homework. It forgot the foundations.

It’s the same old gerry-building: “Anything goes”, Theresa May, Shadow Minister for the Family, said at the Conservative Party Conference, 2004.

Theresa May is wrong. She does not know that the attack on the traditional family has been built over many years after extensive homework. The attack is spearheaded by a large number of activists in the Cabinet, strongly supported by the Prime Minister’s wife Cherie Blair, inconsistently, because she is a staunch Catholic. In a crucial vote two years ago, it was reported that when the Cabinet was split 50/50, her husband laid his casting vote against the family.

Most of the reasons for and strategy for the attack on the family can be read in radical feminist literature, much of it published by members of the Cabinet, by their co-authors, and by Judge Cherie Blair. Some of it is readily available, but not understood by journalists.

Our sex equality envoy in Baghdad.
The government has sent a “gender equality” officer to Baghdad to help emancipate Iraqui women, writes Maurice Chittenden from the (Sunday) Times. Patricia Hewitt, the trade and industry secretary and minister for women, has seconded an expert from her equality unit in Whitehall to the new Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance (ORHA) in Iraq (Sunday Times, June 15, 2003, p9.)

This initiative follows the American plan to put an American female general in charge of Baghdad. A year later, nearly all the young American and British soldiers dying in Fallujah and elsewhere fighting to give equality to Iraqui women are male. Do our objectives in Iraq include encouraging Iraquis to appoint female mullahs, in line with our female Bishops in England and the USA?

On page vii in the forward to her 1993 book The Century Gap. 20th Century Man. 21st Century Woman., Cabinet Minister Harriet Harman wrote;

“Over the past twenty years Patricia Hewitt, Anna Coote and I have developed our ideas together.”

Both Harriet Harman and Patricia Hewitt are members of Tony Blair’s Cabinet, the small executive committee which governs Britain. On page 58, Harman writes;

“ …. Husband(s) …. must exercise within their homes the rules of common courtesy and respect which they practice at work.”

In 1982, in the middle of those twenty years, Anna Coote (1, 2) joined with lesbian Beatrix Campbell to publish their book “Sweet Freedom”. They wrote;

“Feminists have had to contend with some powerful myths. One is that sex is a purely natural phenomenon and therefore apolitical …. Another is that the natural expression of sexuality is what we know as heterosexuality. A third is that a woman’s sense of her own sexuality is natural, rather than something that has been constructed by social and economic factors. …. (p212) Conventional heterosexual practice – that bizarre mixture of myth and coercion – is defended more vigorously than any other precept on which our society is supposed to be founded. (p213)

Allegation that Domestic Violence inheres in the conventional family, and is always perpetuated by men, is the counterpoint to the belief that copulation is an unnatural social invention imposed by patriarchy on naïve and disempowered women. In Coote’s book we read;

“ …. Men regularly beat up women in the privacy of their homes …. The public had to face the fact that domestic violence was widespread and often severe. …. (p40) wife-battering is not the practice of a deviant few, but something which can emerge in the ‘normal’ course of marital relations. (p.41)”

Thus, the current campaign to drive fathers out of the family is to protect women from both violence and from copulation imposed on them by brainwashing and coercion.

Admittedly, I have not found a direct link with the High Priest of Radical Feminism, Catharine A MacKinnon, who helped to draft Canadian and also American laws. In her seminal book, “Towards a Feminist Theory of the State” (Harvard University Press, 1989, 1, 2), she writes;

“…. Rape, which by a conservative definition happens to almost half of all women at least once in their lives …. Over one-third of all women are sexually molested by older and trusted male family or authority figures …. (p142) About one third of all men say they would rape a woman if they knew they would not get caught. (p145), …. most women are raped by men they know …. (p146), a reality …. Women’s sex-based destitution and enforced dependency and permanent relegation to disrespected and starvation-level work …. The pervasive rape and attempted rape about which nothing is done, the systematic battery of women in homes, and prostitution – the fundamental condition of women ….(p242)”.

The first sixty pages of MacKinnon’s book are entitled “Feminism and Marxism”.

The important thing is not to decide on the truth of these assertions, but rather to think through what legislation and society such people would try to create.

The idea that women are oppressed, primarily by living within the married family, is at the heart of the dogma of what is now called the “Commentariat”, those who write and talk within the very narrow range of opinion that is allowed in the “free” media and politics in the UK.

Protest against it is what led the voting majority in the USA to re-elect a politician, President Bush, who showed recognition that western society is being dismantled at its core, the institution of marriage. Had he not done so, a rapidly escalating pro-family Fascist Party might have grown in the USA, as it is likely to do in Britain. Britain is vulnerable because libertarian and homosexual leadership blights the natural party of the Family, the Conservatives. It is noteworthy that in the confusion following Bush’s re-election, the Commentariat slipped into admitting that the voter linked Gay Marriage with the attack on the Family, a link they were successful in suppressing until now, although it would obviously influence voting.

The backlash against the political and media hegemony of a libertarian, intolerant, anti-family censoring Commentariat will be too late to save education from disaster. This can be seen by doing a “Google” search for “Curriculum Transformation”, which is by now very heavily funded. Primarily created and financed by a Radical Feminist-led Ford Foundation, “Curriculum Transformation” permeates academia in the USA. The content of every university syllabus is being replaced by radfem dogma. Study of “Curriculum Transformation” is very helpful if we want to study the roots of radical feminism, which controls the leadership of western societies, but does not control the voters, who will topple that leadership at some time in the future.

Erin Pizzey insists, and Catharine A MacKinnon seems to admit, that Radical Feminism is Marxist. Except for the original idea that normal copulation is unnatural, Radical Feminism is syncretic, stealing ideas from wherever it can. All that has been done with Marxism was to replace “Capitalism” with “Patriarchy”. On the other hand, there are strong indications that in Russia in the 1920s, Feminism was indistinguishable from Marxism.

(Britain and the USA are no longer democratic, but are controlled by tiny groups of extremist women. Democracy having been subverted, can it recovered?) The race is on to exploit outraged reaction between moderate Bush-style recapture for democracy, and a Fascist takeover when the “silent majority’ finally flexes its muscles. Continuing radfem censorship means that the choice between them will not be decided rationally by discussion and debate. Free discussion will be prevented by the libertarian Commentariat until well after the transfer of power.

Other reading on this subject:

Ivor Catt Bar

Advertisements

On the accountability of the secret family court system

“The evaluation strategy for Sure Start local programmes is two-fold – a comprehensive long term, wide ranging national evaluation (which will be completed in July 2008), and evaluations of particular programmes to look at shorter term outcomes for each individual community.”

The above is from the attachment in Whiston’s email to me; from a document produced by Hodge’s “Sure Start” controlling team and forwarded to me by Robert Whiston. Whenever Robert W, or Coe or others talk to their MPS, or are in committee with government – LCD or CAFCASS – they should cite this from Sure Start, and say that there is no reason for it having been avoided all these years by the Family Court System and by CAFCASS. Since Sure Start institutionalises accountability in this way, there is no reason why Family Court judges etc. should not be accountable by the same methods; statistical analysis of the later comparitive death rate etc. of children of divorce who pass through the hands of each judge. Also statistical analysis of outcome (teenage pregnancy, truanting etc.) for children subjected to parentectomy compared with those where contact orders are enforced. Children are the central element in the activity of both Sure Start and the Family Courts. If too high a percentage of the children who pass through the tender hands of Judge Munby later die, or become teenage pregnant, then Judge Munby might even get himself another job without being pushed. Once judges suspected that outcome was statistically significantly worse when they allowed a child to continue to have contact with its divorced father, they would cut off fathers in order to protect their own jobs as judges. As in Surestart, accountability is an accepted feature of virtually every other kind of employment, but not included in any of the roles in our secret family court system.

Ivor Catt 18nov03

UK Fathers – Working Together

Ivor Catt Bar

Family courts’ inroads into questions of criminal domestic violence

Originally published on Fathercare.org:

We find that excluded fathers get muddled over various aspects of the family courts. I have a new point to make here.

More hangs on the issue of whether a criminal offence has been committed when it comes to allegations of domestic violence than in all other cases of criminal allegations, because in these other cases, the future of children is not directly involved. It follows that it is more important, not less, for the correct verdict to be made.

The English system is based on jury trial in open court by the defendant’s peers. It follows that anyone who colludes in supporting the family courts’ inroads into questions of criminal domestic violence would not be able to explain why they supported the jury trial in any criminal case. They have to agree that they oppose jury trials in all cases. If, however, they are in favour of jury trials, they surely must demand that a jury be involved in open court before recourse is made to a Child Contact Centre.

Ivor Catt 20feb03
Ivor Catt Bar

Child Contact Centres – On mushrooming bureaucracies around divorce

Originally published on Fathercare.org:

This muddled writing about Child Contact Centres points to underlying misunderstanding.

I divorced my wife. When I took this action, I did not introduce third parties between me and my children. It is most important for excluded fathers to grasp this point. The State and its lackeys- lawyers and so on – have a right to intervene in the matter of my divorcing my wife. Like marriage, divorce is a public matter in which the state has an interest, because it may result in spouse or children becoming a burden on the state.

However, intervention by the state between me and my children was another matter. When a judge suggested that I go to a “Contact Centre” and my children do the same, he was acting totally outside his proper powers, which were to do with the initial contract of marriage and the current breaching of that contract.

The state’s interest in the marriage contract arises because children may result from that union, leading to parent or child becoming a burden on the state.

[It has never been alleged that the State is better at parenting than is a parent, so the State does not intervene between parent and child.]

Similarly, during divorce, the state has a right to have concern about provision for the children and for a parent of the marriage. However, putting parent and child into a special location with supervision has nothing to do with the state’s interests. In no way does a parent provide for a child by confronting it under supervision.

[Confronting a child under supervision apes providing for a child in the same was as a film about the war apes the war. It is not the same thing.]

This theatrical game has been added on without any legal justification by various bureaucracies intent on exploiting the situation to make money.

Baskerville (see my website) investigates the enormous financial gain from the kind of activity which is mushrooming around divorce. It is most important that excluded fathers be not tricked into supporting such attacks on parent and child by money-hungry bureaucracies and vicious radfems.

Ivor Catt 20feb03
Ivor Catt Bar

A child has no right of access to its parent

More than eight years ago, I pointed out that nowhere in national or international law or in any Declaration on Human Rights is a child’s right of access to its parent enshrined. This has met with total indifference on all sides.

More and more evidence of disastrous outcome for the child following parentectomy leaks out through a highly censoring media. I wonder at this indifference by all parties to the root problem. By default, that is what UN, the European Court of Human Rights, our own laws and practice, and so on through the whole many layered ranges of ‘protections’ for the English child, validate. If Saudi Arabia routinely cut off her children from every divorced wife, they would remain fully able to endorse all UN (and European and British) laws and declarations.

When we want to enable or stop anything else, we discuss legislating on the matter, or adding it to a UN Declaration. In the one case of parentectomy, we become increasingly concerned about its effects, but are totally indifferent to its root cause.

Anyone who is active ‘on my side’; that is, who wants every child to have the right of access to its parent, but is indifferent to my discovery, is actually against me and against possibly the most fundamental right of every child. You cannot do good with your brain switched off; you only get in the way.

Ivor Catt 12feb99
Ivor Catt Bar

I see no sign of interest in this matter.

Ivor Catt 6feb00
Ivor Catt Bar

I see a diminishing interest in this issue, which has been widely canvassed by me for some years now. There is absolutely no evidence that those who express concern about the Family, for instance FYC, are interested. This leads me to assert that a divorcing father would rather lose his home, his children, all his assets and his future income rather than think. Put more succinctly, a man would rather die than think.

Ivor Catt 3jun07
Ivor Catt Bar

The Two Cultures – Fathers being stigmatised by the family court system as threats to their children

The Two Cultures.

An important synthesis arose from discussion with E on 23dec98.

We begin with the all-important decision as to whether the nest-building urge inheres in the nature of men, or else, as Amneus tends to assert, it is culturally constructed. In his book The Garbage Generation, pub. Primrose 1990, he argues that the weak link in the traditional family is to the father, and that it has to be culturally maintained. For Amneus, matriarchy, where the man has no role in the family, is pre-civilization. The key feature of civilization is that the man is locked into the family. This unleashes the great engine of wealth creation. The married man’s income is 70% more than that of the single man, the single woman and the married woman, all of whom earn the same amount. It is the inculcation of the massive wealth creation of the married father that causes economic takeoff into the much higher standard of living that distinguishes civilization.

Those who have experience of our secret family courts know that a new culture is being nurtured at great expense to the taxpayer. Under this culture, the greatest threat to a child is its own father, who wants access to it in order to sexually molest it and to batter it. A man who is drawn into our family courts experiences deep culture shock. The careful inculcation of the idea that his future lies in marrying, working and providing for and caring for his children is contradicted by a new cultural norm. This new norm asserts that married men usually batter their wives and sexually molest their children.

The original inculcation is however relied on by the courts, which assure themselves that whatever barriers they put between father and child, he will struggle to surmount them in order to fulfil his learned duty under the earlier culture. This contradictory situation survives because of the secrecy of the courts and the censorship of their activities. However, a slow fuse has been lit. The message is leaking out, that our culture now regards a father as a threat to his children, and that his only positive aspect is his cheque book. This is why the marriage rate has collapsed, the remarriage rate has collapsed, and the birthrate has collapsed.

My loyalty is to the present crop of young men, who must be warned about the danger they are in.

Ivor Catt 31jan99
Ivor Catt Bar

Feminist agenda on marriage and the family

Is the Men’s Movement against women, or against the family, or against both? Or are they just less intelligent than radical feminists? Read on.

Ivor Catt 23jan99
Ivor Catt BarIn the course of her research for the second edition of her book Farewell to the Family?, Patricia Morgan came across the following passage from a feminist textbook on marriage The Ties That Bind (1984):

The idea of abolishing marriage may sound as attractive as the classical communist call to abolish the family, but such demands are probably as unpopular as they are unrealistic. It would be far more effective to undermine the social and legal need and support for the marriage contract. This could be achieved by withdrawing the privileges which are currently extended to the married heterosexual couple. [These include not vindictively exaggerating the statistics on stress within marriage. IC23jan99.] Such a move would not entail any punitive sanctions but would simply extend legal recognition of different types of households and relationships, and would end such privileges as the unjustified married man’s tax allowance. Illegitimacy would also be abolished by realising the right of all women, whether married or single, to give legitimacy to their children.

This plan of action has been put into effect with complete success. We are now struggling to cope with the consequences as can be seen in the government’s consultation document Supporting Families.

Ivor Catt Bar

References:

  • Patricia Morgan - Farewell to the family? Public policy and family breakdown in Britain and the USA (2nd Edition, 1999)

    Patricia Morgan - Farewell to the family? Public policy and family breakdown in Britain and the USA (2nd Edition, 1999)

    FAREWELL TO THE FAMILY? Public policy and family breakdown in Britain and the USA; by Patricia Morgan (2nd edition: revised & updated); 1999, 240pp Price: £5.00 (rrp: £8.00); Family & Youth Concern Publications; More details; Family Education Trust (Family & Youth Concern); Jubilee House, 19-21 High Street, Whitton, Twickenham TW2 7LB; UK; T 020 8894 2525; F 020 8894 3535; Email the Family Education Trust (Family & Youth Concern)

  • Family Bulletin no. 94, winter 98/99, published by Family And Youth Concern

Also see: