{"id":2756,"date":"2019-02-01T09:02:16","date_gmt":"2019-02-01T09:02:16","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/empathygap.uk\/?p=2756"},"modified":"2026-04-21T20:19:44","modified_gmt":"2026-04-21T19:19:44","slug":"women-trump-children","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/empathygap.uk\/?p=2756","title":{"rendered":"Women Trump Children?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Contents<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

1. Introduction \/ Evolution<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

2. Background: Women Before Children<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

3. Abortion Without Time Limit<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

1. Introduction \/ Evolution<\/a><\/h1>\n\n\n\n

It\u2019s no longer about men\u2019s rights; it\u2019s about children\u2019s\nrights.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It has been apparent for some time that the feminists\nset women ahead of children. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

I thought I couldn\u2019t get any more implacably opposed to\nfeminism. It seems I was wrong.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Let me remind you of the evolutionary origin of our\ndifficulties. The preferencing of women (call it chivalry, call it gynocentrism,\ncall it the empathy gap, call it what you will) has its origin in the pair bond,\na key Homo sapiens adaptation, central to the overwhelming success of the\nspecies (amongst other attributes). But in this regard, women \u2013 as mothers \u2013\nare actually a proxy for children. Evolution cares only for reproductive\nsuccess, which is manifest in children and their survival to reproductive age.\nWhen women\u2019s primary concern was the domestic, they functioned as a suitable proxy\nfor children. What was beneficial for the mother could be assumed to also be\nbeneficial for the child. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

But in respect of women in a non-domestic role, such as in the workplace, their preferencing is an anomaly: such preferencing is not conducive to evolutionary success. Indeed, in as far as it diminishes the birth rate (as it has), it is counter-evolutionary. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

And when it comes to killing babies, there can be no\nclearer departure from an evolutionary optimum: no clearer indication that\nfeminism has subverted and invalidated the proxy status of women. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

2. Background: Women Before Children<\/a><\/h1>\n\n\n\n

Where I\u2019m heading with this post is abortion, and, in particular, the moves to permit abortion without time limit. But first, a brief reminder of how feminism has been putting women\u2019s rights ahead of children\u2019s rights for decades. This has long been apparent in the context of the safeguarding of children. This arises in the context of custody\/contact after parental separation. For example, Karen Woodall writes<\/a>,<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cFor four decades since the change in divorce laws, the needs of women\nin the family have usurped the needs of children<\/em>\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The same focus on mothers to the exclusion of their children also occurs when social services are actively involved in a dysfunctional family. Here is Karen again, writing in 2013<\/a>,<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe\nreports of Filicide, the murder by a mother of her child, are all over the news\nthis week. Baby P, Daniel Pelka, Hamzah Khan, Keanu Williams\nbeing just four names that are engraved upon our consciousness, not just\nbecause of their untimely deaths, but because of the nature of the suffering\ninflicted upon them before they died.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Collective\nhandwringing is in evidence up and down the land and who is to blame is being\nwidely discussed.  The sight of the Head of Birmingham Children\u2019s\nSafeguarding Board attempting to squirm out of the reality of her\nresponsibility for allowing yet another death of a child to happen on her\nwatch, was excruciating on the BBC news last night.  Her words, in a\nstatement released this week scream out the reality of why children are dying,<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u2018I wish, on behalf of all the statutory agencies who sit on the Board to express very deep regret and distress about Keanu\u2019s death. We apologise unequivocally for what were totally unacceptable and unnecessary failures both collectively and individually in every organisation which had contact with Keanu. We fully accept all the findings of the Serious Case Review and the recommendations made. Keanu died because there was failure across every agency to see, hear and respond to him in the context of what he was experiencing at any one point in time. Staff were distracted by his mother\u2019s needs and by taking what she was telling them at face value.\u2019 <\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Karen again, “Staff were distracted by his mother\u2019s needs and by taking what she was telling them at face value! \u00a0In other words, a systemic use of gender biased practice which focuses practitioners not on the needs of children, but on the rights and needs of women. \u00a0If ever there was proof needed that social work and our children and family services are, as a very senior social worker said recently, a \u2018feminist industry\u2019, this is it. \u00a0Gender biased family services, upholding the rights and needs of women above those of children, are killing those children in a neighbourhood near you and until we name it, we are never going to stop it.<\/em>\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The four cases named above are not isolated. Ignoring the danger to children posed by mothers is an endemic problem. This was further exposed in the November 2017 report \u201cLearning from Cafcass submissions to Serious Case Reviews<\/a>\u201d, by Richard Green and Emily Halliday. This report derives lessons to be learnt from the 97 Serious Case Reviews (SCRs) to which CAFCASS contributed between 2009 and 2016. These SCRs involved known or suspected abuse or neglect of a child where the child died or was seriously harmed. The key findings were,<\/p>\n\n\n\n