Child poverty

One of the following three sentences was the first line in a recent report in the Times. Can you guess which is the real one:

A gay father is being hunted by the police after leaving his husband and running away with the sperm donor who gave birth to their second child”

“A lesbian mother is being hunted by police after leaving her wife and running away with the sperm donor who fathered their second child”

“A lesbian father is being hunted by police after leaving her wife and running away with the sperm donor who gave birth to their second child”

Of course it was the second one. That is obvious isn’t it? I mean, whoever heard of a lesbian father or a sperm donor giving birth? Whereas a woman running away from her “wife” with the man who donated sperm for the two women’s second child is of course perfectly normal. And when the article goes on to tell us that the two women were both registered on the birth certificate as the child’s mother, we know we can breathe a sigh of relief, safe in the knowledge that the world has not taken leave of its senses, can’t we? Move on. Nothing to see here.

And yet … I must admit when I read the sentence I did a double take. I don’t know why. I suppose I should have been ready for reading the words “her wife” since women have apparently been able to have them for a while now. But it seems I had never before actually seen the words in print, and so it rather took me by surprise. Women have wives? Apparently so.

In fact, I was hit by a sudden touching moment of nostalgia, whisked back to my childhood, and in a sort of hazy dream I remembered a time when men were men and everyone knew this to be true, women were women and everyone knew that to be true, men had wives, women had husbands – you know, just like in the rest of human history. But then I must have grown up at some point and found that no, it was those days that were abnormal, along with the rest of human history of course. Women really can have wives, men really can have husbands, and a child really can have two mothers and a sperm donor. Or was it three mothers? Or four? I cannot remember.

Do women have husbands? Female husbands I mean. Or do women always have to be wives when they marry? That would be a shame for feminism, which hates the very sight of the word. I know I probably should know these things, but actually I really have no idea. I suppose if a wife can be married to a woman, and a husband can be married to a man, then there’s no rational reason why a woman cannot be married to a woman and call her “my husband,” is there? Then again it should be noted that rationality and reason are not exactly playing their strongest hand in all this. They appear to have taken a leave of absence, and so all bets are off.

Maybe two women can both be husbands. Maybe two men can both be wives. Or is that taking things too far? “Cuck-cuck-cuck-cur-r-r-cuckk-k,” as Squirrel Nutkin once said.

When Laura Perrins at TCW sent the Times piece over to me asking if I could provide some comment on it, she described it as the “Orwellian nature of our times”. Sorry Laura, I disagree. Orwell knew nothing. He did not hold a candle to this. The system he envisaged set out to break a man and to crush his will. But it was still a man that was being broken. What’s going on today is not an attempt to break a man but to redefine Man completely. Man has become Morph, and he is so malleable that he can be refashioned in any which way that the zeitgeist demands. Lop a bit off here, add it on there. Take a bit off there and add it on here. Squish it all together and there you have it: Morph is now Susan and she’s husband to her husband Brenda, and together they are both mother to Harriet, who is herself the world’s first transgender baby.

Today’s creeping dystopia is not Orwellian, but Unwellian. That is, it shows that our society is really unwell. And it is only the deep roots of Christian cultural influence, which have permeated our society for over 1,000 years, that keeps some semblance of normality going. But since the whole point of the Cultural Marxism that spawned male wives, female husbands, and transgender children with four mothers and two sperm donors is to tear those roots out of the ground and burn them on the sacrificial altar to the great god “Tolerance’n’Diversity,” what then? What happens when the roots are burned and the experiment begins to reach its zenith? Any idea? The Cultural Marxists say utopia. Everything else cries dystopia. Or just cries. Orwell with nobs on anyone?

The word that haunts me most in the Times article is that word “child”. In the midst of the selfish insanity that we have embarked on, there are children. In fact, there are lots of children. Protecting them really ought to be the business of adults. But no, we have given up protecting them and they are just pawns in the War on Reality that we have declared.

I held a group discussion with some Christian friends last week covering a little of the history of cultural Marxism, and how it has led to this kind of thing. Having gone through it all, and having unanimously agreed that it was all insane and more than a little disquieting, I asked the following question: Put your hand up if you are praying fervently to the Triune God on a regular basis to come and save our society from this mess. No hands. How about you?

If you appreciated this article, perhaps you might consider making a donation to The Conservative Woman. Our contributors and editors are unpaid but there are inevitable costs associated with running a website. We receive no independent funding and depend on our readers to help us, either with regular or one-off payments. You can donate here. Thank you.