Liberals often mock conservatives saying that the negative consequences we warned would result from fundamental cultural and social shifts imposed by the elite never in fact occur.
In the rarified and privileged world of the elite they are spared the damaging fall out but it does occur elsewhere – where life is tougher, money tighter and family bonds more tenuous.
There are victims of the massive cultural and sexual revolution of the last forty years and many can be found in Rotherham.
A Rotherham abuse survivor, Sarah Wilson, has spoken to the Telegraph. It is difficult reading.
Although much of the criticism has rightly focused on the useless state institutions, namely the police and social services, the question I asked myself is why did Sarah Wilson’s rapists target her over others?
The perpetrators were disproportionately of Pakistani heritage. Why did they target white girls over girls in their own community? I am not a criminologist so these issues are difficult to answer, but to me this is the clash of the patriarchies – one that no longer exists and one that is poisonous.
Feminists have destroyed that idea that a father’s fundamental role is to protect his family. They argued this was a means to control women and girls and in some cases I am sure this was true.
This is an abuse of the privileged position a father has to protect his family. But what is clear from Sarah Wilson’s account is that having been deprived of a father and protector she was an easy target for her rapists.
Lacking a father not only deprives young girls of male attention that they crave but also a protector. It seems Sarah never had a father in her life and no one ever asks why. Where was he? Why did he decide to play no role in her life? Why did he leave her to fend for herself?
Sarah’s mother tried to act as a protector. At one point she confronted the rapists but they ‘laughed in her face’ or threatened her with violence. Of course they did – she was no match for them. If it did come to a physical altercation there was only one winner.
In fact, at one point this gang of rapists dragged Sarah from her house in front of her mother. The mother was powerless to stop it. If it was Sarah’s father confronting the rapists perhaps the outcome would have been different.
Sarah’s mother was also handicapped in protecting her daughter, as she had to assume the provider role and this stopped her from keeping a closer eye on her. So Sarah was left without a father and for much of the time the physical presence of her mother who had to work double shifts for her family.
So having been deprived of her father as protector and provider – something the liberal feminists said would not matter at all – how did the State measure up in caring for Sarah? Predictably it was rubbish. Sarah has greater distain for it than her abusers. So do I.
Police and social workers just dismissed these young girls as ‘dirty little prostitutes’ making a ‘lifestyle choice’ – no doubt indoctrinated by training days instructing them to be non-judgmental – so they just left her to fend for herself.
This brings us to the rapists. They did not target girls in their own community because those girls have fathers and brothers to protect them. If the abusers targeted girls in their own community they would end up in a dumpster or deep river. But this patriarchy is the one that abuses its power to control women and girls.
Incredibly Sarah’s sister, Laura, was the first white victim of an honour killing in Britain. She was stabbed 40 times by an ex-boyfriend Ashtiaq Asghar for revealing their relationship to his family.
“Asghar was furious, believing that Laura had bought shame on his family, and plotted her murder in response. Asghar lured Laura to a canal in Rotherham and stabbed her more than 40 times, before throwing her body in the water.”
And so it goes on. Things are different outside the M25. Fathers matter. And the lack of a father matters even more.