Adoption into the seat of oppression


I strongly recommend this for ill eagle. RW

No source cited. Ivor Catt  10nov02


At last someone has said the obvious.

I have read much radfem literature, for instance Catharine A MacKinnon. For them, the married family is the seat of oppression for mother and children. The family has to be destroyed in order to save women and children from battery and sexual abuse.

The Social Services are trained on courses heavily influenced by radfem dogma. (In the case of CWO's (their old name), the nature of their training is officially kept secret from us, but we do know that it is radfem.)

It is therefore the duty of a social worker to obstruct adoption, and so save a child from the depredations of a husband.

I found out from Ostertag that the income for a child in foster care etc. is 24,000 pounds per year. That ends if the child is adopted. Thus, the financial incentive to obstruct adoption is allied to the moral duty to save the child from adoption. However, in the case of adoption by two lesbians, only the money would be lost. The child will remain safe, possible even safer than in care, where there may be men around waiting to sexually abuse or rape them.

Ivor Catt         10nov02


Social “Services” will obstruct adoption because radfem dogma says that the family is the seat of oppression of women and children.

-----Original Message-----
From: Matthaus Huber <>
To: <>
Date: 06 November 2002 23:59
Subject: [ukmm] Fw: Social Services, adoption, secrecy and power

>----- Original Message -----
>From: Matthaus Huber <>
>To: <>
>Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 11:33 PM
>Subject: Social Services, adoption, secrecy and power
 Scandal of the children denied homes with adoptive parents
 By Sheila Lawlor
 (Filed: 06/11/2002)

 The crisis in adoption has nothing to do with the controversy about
granting gay couples the right to adopt. There is a scandal that will not be solved by the Adoption Bill that has been debated in Parliament, with or without its provisions for gay couples. The heart of this scandal is that thousands of married couples who are anxious to adopt are not allowed to, and that thousands of children therefore stay in unsatisfactory care.

 The Bill is meant to make adoption quicker, transparent and more
 streamlined. But it does not tackle the real obstacle - the entrenched
 powers of the local authority and its social service departments, filled
with officials for whom both ordinary family life and adoption itself conflict with the values on which their own interests rest.

 First, take the children for whom the local authorities or councils are
 responsible, once the decision is made to take them into care. Of the
90,000 or so children in care in a given period, about 70 per cent return home within a year. Those who remain in care are not adopted but fostered out, often for short periods, with different families. Foster parents are paid to care for the child and the council remains responsible. Often a child has three or more different foster families in a year. Only about half (46 per cent) spend as long as two years with the same foster parents.

 The children therefore go from pillar to post, unable to settle down, and are less and less likely to be adopted. We hear of their longing for
 stability and for adoption where, as one child put it, there would be
 someone to "call Mum and Dad". That, however, may never be. According to the figures, after 18 months of care, a child is likely to remain in care for four years, and probably until he leaves the care system at 17 or 18.

 The evidence is that local councils, far from encouraging adoption, have put insurmountable obstacles in the way of adoptive parents, many of whom are stable, married couples. It is officially admitted that prospective adopters have been rejected because they are the wrong race or mix, the wrong age or because they smoke. But there is another less obvious, but probably greater hurdle: the "positive" vetting of prospective parents by officials - a vetting which most decent parents would probably fail.

 This vetting puts adoptive parents through the "Form F" procedure. The social worker on the "case" is given open access for visits to the family so as to "vet" it, and may put the most personal and intrusive questions.
The family is entitled to see neither the detailed private notes for the case nor the private recommendations of the social worker during the course of the long inquiry - which often lasts over a year, with home visits and interviews and references. Rather, the family may be told generally the official position and shown the open (but limited) report. The couple will not usually be present at the adjudication and has no way of directly answering any "charge" against them or of countering false information - which will not have been revealed to them - or the prejudices of the social workers.

 In theory, such adoptive parents may make their own representations or may appeal to different bodies and an ombudsman but the reality is a kangaroo court system - ostensible fairness and hidden prejudice. The Adoption Bill proposes a right of appeal but this already exists. There is nothing to suggest the system will be other than stacked in favour of the social service departments whose control and influence will be enhanced.

 Rejected adopters will hardly be encouraged by the prospect of appealing and going through a new set of hoops. Already, they will have spent considerable sums in charges levied by the council for vetting and "Form F" and most likely, too, for the obligatory medical check. They will also have lost earnings because of the leaves of absence they are so often obliged to take from work to be available for the "knock on the door" at the whim of a social worker.

 What is behind this dismal tale? The present social service departments
were created as a single service in the 1970s following the Seebohm Report. Anew council bureaucracy was created, each with a single director, unified training schemes and a "generic social work" role covering every part of society, young and old. The new departments took over different functions from the Home Office, health ministry and the different council committees. They were able to lobby for public money and to influence and rival the powerful education departments.

 From the start there was a conflict of ideology in these departments.
Should they support families or supplant them and use their powers to promote an alternative society, since, in the eyes of many social workers, families are seen as a source of oppression? Such anti-family ideology is at the root of many of the notorious cases of social work. Children were in some cases confiscated from their families and taken into care - as in Cleveland, the actions of the social workers were eventually condemned by thecourts. At the same time, defenceless children known to be at serious risk were left in the care of unstable, negligent and ultimately evil adults, very often where only one was a natural parent.

 The Adoption Bill might have been intended to help, but instead it plays into the hands of those who have persistently undermined the prospects of adoption for children in care. Social workers will have more funds, more training and ultimately more power. Little will be done for the children,
 whose time runs out as adoptive parents go through endless appeals and as local authorities, despite targets and the aim of a quicker system, fail to place children for adoption.

 The real solution is to take adoption and the care of children out of the
 hands of the state and to follow the successful systems found in America and on the Continent, where extended families, intending adopters, natural parents, charities and voluntary bodies work together within a frameworkof law to assure the best future for the children. But the Government, with its irrelevant proposal for gay couples to adopt, has created a distraction - and children and families are the losers.

 The author is director of the think tank Politeia



I now remember that it was I who said that the old right/left divide had gone, and the new politics was pro-family/anti-family. [However, later on Eugen said it was Robert Whiston. – IC 16nov02]


Free France; liberte, egalite, fraternite; Vichy (right wing) France; Travaille, Famille, Patrie. Famille figures in the right, Vichy, and not in the Free France.


The battle last week when IDS self-destructed was not understood by all media and all politicians (except a little in the Sunday Telegraph Editorial of 10nov02). It was a battle for control of the Tory party by anti-family against pro-family.


The Tories would have had a future had they reverted to being pro-family. Unfortunately, there were too many homosexual (and therefore anti-family) and meta-homosexual (Portillo, Maude etc.) forces at the centre of the Tory party, and they won by ousting IDS. This means that both parties will become anti-family. Letwin and IDS (rather less) understood the issue, but they were too weak (psychologically) to save the party.


A source close to me tells me that Portillo was more homosexual than is generally thought while at Peterhouse Cambridge. Failure of Ken Clarke to understand what are the imperatives around him may lead us into a historic disaster. During the last two weeks, he has switched to favouring adoption by unmarrieds and by homosexuals. Either he does not understand, or he puts temporary political expedient before historical necessity. Probably the former. Because a pro-buggery media does not understand, because it must not, Clarke will not fully grasp the situation he is in. The role of the media today is to validate (and even adulate) decadence, including buggery. If only Clarke understood, and took a stand, he would rise to the top in the long term, as the effect of anti-family and buggery became obvious to the voter. (Similarly, IDS could have gone to the top had he understood enough.) However, he does not understand fully enough, because he lives in a hail of media nonsense about homophobia and various family forms.


If this seems strange, that the should-be pro-family right goes against its historical imperative by taking against the family, remember that we come out of a similarly aberrant era of half a century of more, when both parties were pro-family, which the left should not have been. This aberration occurred because an inherently right wing institution, the TUC, created a left wing party, Labour. Although left wing, Labour kept the conservative element in the TUC of being pro-family, which the Fabians were not (I assume, but do not know. I would think that the Fabians were promiscuous, which is why the intelligentsia of the left is anti-family, to validate their promiscuity. The respectable working class did not have the economic surplus with which to pay the added costs of promiscuity. In any case, the rejection of promiscuity is what distinguished the respectable working class, and raised them above and away from the dissolute working class, and allowed them economic take-off and rise through the class system.). [It is important to note that, under the (Norman Dennis) system that existed in the 1950s, we are today all in the dissolute working class. This is because marriage of the 1950s has been destroyed by the family courts, and no longer exists, as Brenda Hoggett (now Justice Lane(?)) has said.]


[An aberration lasted for centuries in the USA, when the political right in the south (Democrat) united with the political left in the north (Democrat), and vice versa.]


The aberration in England occurred because of Norman Dennis's two working classes; the respectable working class, right wing, and the dissolute working class, left wing. Both were in the TUC, and so aberrations occurred, and lasted for a long time. However, Engels saw marriage as the seat of oppression for women, and said it must be destroyed. Engels here expressed normative left, which is anti-family.


The essential feature of the political left is that the state is benign, and will look after children once they are got out of the grips of parents. Further, the totalitarian tendency of the political left is obstructed by other groupings and loyalties, like the family. Here we may need to remember that Hitler was "National Socialism" , and so perhaps of the left. Anyway, at the extreme, both left and right are totalitarian.


Catharine A MacKinnon, "Toward a Feminist Theory of the State", pub. Harvard UP 1989. First 80pp; "The problem of Marxism and Feminism". Pizzey says the radfems are Marxist. It is certain that radfems are on the historic political left, which wants the destruction of the family.


The political left, e.g. "Welfare State", sees an all-embracing state looking after everyone, and trying to oust other loyalties, for instance in the family. The political right, with its suspicion of agglomeration of power, favours fragmentation, for instance into multiple powerful families with internal loyalty and power.


I see Fascism as a further move beyond the "political right" direction, mentioned above. Under Fascism, I think of government as undertaken by a compromise between various powerful groups. This is thought to prevent the totalitarianism of the majority, which is the risk with one man one vote democracy. Democracy undermines the fascist tendency for fragmentation into powerful sub-groups, which can resist the unitary power of the state. The two-party (Labour-Tory) state is a move towards the fascist ideal, of fragmentation.  (One has to surmise as to what is fascism, because it is nowhere defined or discussed.)


Radfems took Marxism and replaced the word "Capitalism" with the word "Patriarchy". For MacKinnon, any sexual intercourse in a patriarchy is rape. Ours is a patriarchy. This maps onto the exploitation of the worker in Marxism. Rape, and even more, ever present threat of rape maintains the supremacy of the man, mapping onto the dominating capitalist.


The capture of the right by anti-family Portillo and fellow-traveller Clarke is a further pressure leading to deepening crisis for the next twenty years. The end of family means totalitarianism and mayhem. The end of family means individuals trying to survive, and trying to face up to, the all-powerful state.


Ivor Catt         11nov02



XMore at