Baroness Billingham

I was listening to Sky News, whilst pottering about on the net. They usually have some notable or other to review the morning papers at this time. However, as it is the time for Labour and Conservative Party conferences they were discussing party politics. They had a Tory blogger and a Labourer party supporter, one Baroness Billingham.

They were discussing Tory Policies and the blogger mentioned that one of the policies would be to give a £2,000 tax break to married couples with children whilst of course being careful not to discriminate against single mothers. The idea being to support the traditional family as their research has linked our broken society to fatherless homes.

The Baroness objected to this asking why not give it to the children? Why discriminate against single mothers? She then proceeded to emphasis, twice, that it was the children who were important. When the blogger pointed out that this was not the intention and asked why not give it to traditional families she replied “because this is not the family norm that we have in this country. Why not give to widows bringing up children or single mothers or……….she could not bring herself to say traditional family instead she said…..any other type of family. It is the children who are important – get that right and everything else will be right.”

The Labour Party, since it came to power, has done everything it can to undermine the traditional family and to exclude fathers from the family. The end result, as she full well knows of course, is that our society will continue to fragment, there will in the not too distant future, be gender apartheid and millions of men and going to end up in prison. Women are fully supporting the Labour Party and if you add massive immigration into the equation, this party is set to rule for at least another generation.

If this happens we will be beyond the point of no return. They will have us where they want us – totally under their control.

In the mean time the ‘in discussion’ for women seems to be ‘Why are women so unhappy?’ The consensus of female opinion is that men are not pulling their weight.


Strewth (expletive deleted) give me strength. How, when people seem to be so ignorant of what is going on, can we turn this around?

She couldn't bring herself to say traditional family, and she sure as heck didn't say anything about giving it to the single dads that are raising their children. Since it's "the children who are important" (which I agree), perhaps somebody should provide her with statistics that show boys raised in homes without a father present are more than twice as likely to become juvenile delinquents, and girls raised in a home without a father are twice as likely to end up pregnant as teens.

I often wonder.. Is this really a bad thing?

lets face it, with so many women missing out on their breeding years, its probably just as well!

Kim,

They know all this. This has been deliberately brought about. It is called Social Engineering. The more unruly a society you have the more draconian laws you can bring in. There will be no turning back because once you alienate the genders, there will be nothing to fight for.

I'm going to assume you're being sarcastic, Drex. Under the odd chance that you're not, here are a few more statistiics for you,

The children of teenage mothers have lower birth weights, are more likely to perform poorly in school, and are at greater risk of abuse and neglect.

The sons of teen mothers are 13 percent more likely to end up in prison while teen daughters are 22 percent more likely to become teen mothers themselves.

I agree.

Not being sarcastic, I am just challenging the common feminist assumption that the ideal age for a woman to have kids is 34 or so..

Statistics are routinely used in arguements, but folk dont look behind them to see the REAL issues that the statistics hide..

It should be pretty easy to see what the real issues are..

And why the war on teen pregnancies is more a ploy to fit women into the slave-trade workplace than a genuine concern for women who have made a choice unaproved by the state..

O.K., but there is a HUGE difference between being younger than 34 and having children and being an unwed teenage mother. I had my first child at 20 and had three children by the time I was 26, which was great. However, at 15 or 16, most girls are not emotionally equipped for motherhood, and inevitably, it is the child who suffers. Feminists might fight against teenage pregnancy for their own reasons, those of us who stand as advocates of children do so for entirely different reasons.

Drex,

Sometimes your thinking is way too lateral. The whole idea has been to encourage teen pregnancies. Eventually their offspring will be removed to be brought up by the State. Government and feminists have already been hinting at this!

Yet, Kim, at the same time they, and we, are continually told that they are much more mature than boys. Girls of that age are convinced - by their mothers - that they are adult. Maturity is guaged by the size of bra cups.

Meanwhile a 15 or 16 year old boy who gets a girl pregnent has to assume all the financial responsibility of an adult. He isn't financially equiped but that doesn't stop the courts forcing him to be anyway.

PS. Drex, this isn't the middle ages.

And what precisely is that huge difference? Is it a matter of age? Is it a matter of marital status? It has been established that for many men marraige is a no-brainer. It is also nothing other than a piece of paper in reality..

Well, it seems to tie in closely with the old medical view that age 24 or so was the best age for motherhood.. medical advice that has recently been altered to 34.. which is patently pandering to the femistates desire to milk young women for their labour.. in your previous paragraph, that huge difference seems to be one year.. and a piece of paper I presume..

In the west maybe, (but I really doubt that young mothers are intrinsically of low quality..) and perhaps also the type of woman in the west who becomes pregnant at this age is not the most robust breeder to start off with.. What is it about western education and social pressures that is more interested in creating slaves for the femistate than encouraging women to be good mothers and choose stable fathers (and create a society that does not label and descriminate against them in the first place!) Children suffer whenever factors are against them, it is not something that is confined to the younger mothers..
Well, what are those reasons? It seems that the majority of keen breeders in the UK are the teenagers and the over 35's.. (only one group, the former, seems to actually have any natural success at this, while the latter get pandered to and resources thrown at them to get the chlamydia wrecked tubes back into order...)
The vilification of teenage mothers and the prejudiced attitudes they encounter would be enough to test any mother of any age..
There is something about the feminised western world that simply refuses to accept natures own signals..
The statistics bandied around are feminist hogwash.. The overriding factor that lies beneath the stats is the low status of these young ladies and its also something that ties in closely with another thread where I stated that these women are perhaps choosing motherhood because they cant thrive in the workplace!!
Dead end job working for crap wages or a life of leisure propped up by the state?
Its a no-brainer for those at the bottom end of the social ladder..
I submit that POVERTY is the overriding factor, not age!!
I can certainly give examples of teen mothers who have rasied kids very well, and women of "ideal" age, who have completely cocked it up..

Indeed it is not, for in those days due to poorer diet women reached sexual maturity somewhat later..