|
In Milton's great Paradise Lost, Adam prepares a garland of flowers for Eve, unaware that
she has just eaten the forbidden fruit and that she is on her way back from the tree and about
to ask him to join her in her sin.
"ADAM, soon as he heard
"O fairest of Creation, last and best
And without hesitation he goes on:
"And mee with thee hath ruind, for with thee
He continues:
"Should God create another EVE, and I
After further musings on the dire consequences of what she has done and the position she has now
put him in he adds:
"However I with thee have fixt my Lot,
In her reply Eve says:
"O glorious trial of exceeding Love - - - ."
And:
"To undergoe with mee one Guilt, one Crime,
Which she sees as presenting an opportunity.
"This happie trial of thy Love, which else
The choice is clear for Adam. Obey God and stay in Paradise, likely with a new Eve, or join her
in her sin and accept the consequences.
He took the apple from her and ate it.
"Earth trembl'd from her entrails, as again
I am 83. I met my wife when she was sixteen and I seventeen and was with her for 61 years, fifty five of them married, until she passed away over five years ago. We raised two children.
Since she passed, I have been helping families who try to flee from the state's child
protection agencies to prevent their children being seized and placed into state care.
Fifty years ago when my children were born there was no possibility of a social worker
knocking on our door and then with the help of the police seizing our children. Nor was there
any such a possibility over the twenty years or so they were growing up. Such an incident was
unimaginable. The family had authority and status. I as a husband and father was the main
protector of my wife and children.
However, over the past twenty years or so in the West and especially in the English-speaking
countries, the State has usurped the role of, not just the father, but of parent and family
under an ideology known as 'child protection'. Fundamental to this ideology is the notion that
the State, not parents, knows what is best for children. As this was being written, Ian
Kennedy, a professor at University College London, was reported as saying that children do not
belong to their parents but to the State. This doctrine flies in the face of not just the
natural world but of evolution itself.
The assault on the father is even more extreme than that on the family. Ironically, the
ideologies of victim feminism and state child protection, which drive fathers from the family
home, allow the entry of boyfriends and step fathers into the home. These men may lack the
protective instinct of the natural father.
As if the assault on parents and the family was not enough, it is now clear that there is an
assault on the fundamental element of the family - the union of man and woman.
I had already seen signs of this in my work with families fighting to keep their children.
Social workers, mainly women, did not like the male partners of the women whose children they
sought to seize. In the few cases where a woman managed to keep her children it was usually on
condition that she break with her man. In the UK where most of my experience has been, this was
in an environment where many young men were already severely disenfranchised. With social
services intervention the man became just extra useless baggage, a threat to the mother's
chances of keeping her children.
But the assault on the union of man and woman is coming not just from the State's assault on the family but also from at least two new ideologies.
The first, possibly born out of militant feminism and the culture of victimhood, is manifested in the new monitoring and regulation of sexual activity between men and women, particularly in society's and the State's apparent need to codify the early or exploratory stages of men's first moves to attract women. Such moves if deemed 'inappropriate' are being characterized as harassment and even sexual assault. This could have a profound negative effect on spontaneity and on the natural emergence and course of love.
Fifty and thirty years ago the thought that a social worker could knock on our door to take our children was unimaginable. Now children are being taught in school to question their biological gender and accept that it can be blurred and fluid or that girl can be boy and boy can be girl.
Melanie McDonagh also wrote:"Gender cannot be at real risk because it is anchored in an
immutable reality. What is on the cards is oppression, socially engineered dysfunction and the
loss of individual freedom."
So where has this extraordinary new ideology come from?
Thank Heavens that there are a few brave thinkers prepared to stand up and denounce it, especially as it has invaded the law to the extent that it is becoming a crime in some countries to insist that men and women are different. Outstanding among these thinkers is Professor Jordan Peterson of the University of Toronto.
What Jordan Peterson also exemplifies is the role that universities in the West now play in both the promotion of NeoMarxist ideologies and in the suppression of free speech. His own university might have suppressed him had it not been for the huge media attention and audiences his videos received when he criticized the new Canadian legislation which enforces the acceptance of the fluidity of gender identity.
We can call it militant gender identity politics and it appears to have its source in what is
called postmodern cultural Marxism. In other words Communism in a new expression, where the
oppressed is no longer the exploited worker but a 'victim' of some kind.
Masculinising women and feminising men strikes at the heart of the erotic so that they are less attractive to each other.
Issuing a code of practice for a man to approach a woman will certainly damage both eroticism and spontaneity. I have already said that a social worker could not have come knocking on our door fifty years ago, but, for something even more inconceivable, permit me to return to a very personal moment. It was sixty-six years ago and I remember the exact date and the time of the evening and the place. It was a natural and spontaneous act, which changed my life and secured for me over sixty years of love and companionship. It was the first time I kissed the sixteen year old girl who became my wife. I would accept prison and death before I would let the State or its agents force me to accept rules of how I should have engaged in that sacred act.
Such intervention by the State is also an assault on the one remaining Garden of Eden - the love of man and woman.
Worlds of endless possibilities
|
