Anthea Parry (Thursday, comments) notes with “amusement” that five men wrote objections to Charles Richardson’s nonsense about population policy. Parry’s real objection, though, is to the clear connection between the emancipation of women and the falling birth rate.

There is no doubt that the Family Law Act has done more to emancipate women and establish a domestic matriarchy, than it has to re-create or support the family. Children and marriage are viewed as a form of currency to the feminist.

Feminism has always been the enemy of the family. It views women who stay home to bring up their children as traitors. It demands that the state fund permanent and free childcare for all women in the face of significant studies (Melbourne University) that indicate that such childcare damages children later in life (ref: Anne Manne). It eulogises single motherhood and demands access to state funded IVF programs for lesbians. It mocks men who object to and seek compensation for paternity fraud (ref: Leslie Cannold. Last year’s High Court decision).

Feminism has been by far the most significant destructive force behind the breakdown of the family, and just about every statistic you can point to will reveal that the family (and consequently the birthrate) has fallen in inverse proportion to the rise of the women’s movement.

Charles Richardson should be clear, as a feminist, that the “increased standards of living” are driven by the “improved status of women” as much as the improved status of women is driven by increased living standards.

It is not possible to have a full time career and bring up even one and certainly not two or more healthy children as well. Unless, of course you expect the state to bring your children up through its childcare centres and schools.

I have never viewed bringing my daughter up as “drudgery” – more like a war zone – trying to maintain responsibility and love throughout a massive barrage of misandry (hatred of maleness) perpetrated by all sorts of feminisms promoted and improved upon every year by our schools and universities.

Australia has a birthrate of about 1.7 percent because Australian men and women do not love each other enough. As a man who is not a feminist, I have experienced feminism to almost always hinder heterosexual love much more than it has nurtured it.

Apart from Camille Paglia, there has not been a feminist narrative anywhere (particularly not in Australia) that has supported a family in which a man can achieve parental equity.

Our low birthrate is largely the result of a failing domestic matriarchy which has become more interested in wealth and power than children. Exactly the point of Charles Richardson’s piece. All hail the male lesbian.

Peter Fray

Help us keep up the fight

Get Crikey for just $1 a week and support our journalists’ important work of uncovering the hypocrisies that infest our corridors of power.

If you haven’t joined us yet, subscribe today and get your first 12 weeks for $12.

Cancel anytime.

Peter Fray
Editor-in-chief of Crikey