For a long time, I’ve been watching the news sites for articles about infanticide. Stepfathers and (biological) mothers commit by far the bulk of it, even if you don’t count abortion. If you click on my “motherhood” tag, you’ll find one article about a woman who put her baby in an oven, turned it on, and left the house. Her boyfriend found it and took it out in time to save its life. Boy, men sure are aggressive and dangerous! Biological fathers almost never kill their children. This is a large part of why children need their fathers so desperately, and why mothers who attempt to deprive children of their biological fathers are evil.
So naturally this headline caught my attention:
Dad accused of forcing son into field, killing him
I clicked, fully expecting that it would turn out that the “Dad” was actually whatever punk the boy’s mother was fucking and not the boy’s father at all. The media frequently tries to obscure the fact that women like to spread their legs for men who batter, rape and murder their children by other men.
Well, for once, the murderer was the victim’s biological father, but:
A 37-year-old father irate over hearing his 15-year-old son had sexual contact with a 3-year-old girl made the teen strip at gunpoint, marched him to a vacant lot and shot him to death despite pleas from the boy and his mother, a relative said.
This man is a hero. He has rescued who knows how many other toddlers from rape.
Notice that the baby-raper’s mother was, according to the article, pleading for the child molester’s life. This is something I’ve been meaning to blog about: why mothers cannot (most of the time) raise children decently on their own.
The fact is, when a woman is still childless, her genetic imperative is to find a man with good genes to give her some and a man with good means to support them. (These will not necessarily be the same man!) Once a woman has produced a son, he replaces her mate as her hope of genetic survival. As Richard Coniff put it in The Natural History of the Rich, “sociobiologist John Hartung has argued… because women want the spending and the philandering to be done by their sons rather than their husbands.”
Anyone who has ever seen the way a mother reacts when her son is accused of beating up a smaller child has seen this. She does not care if her son is behaving morally; she cares if he is going to be able to seize resources from others and spread his genes. In light of this necessity, small wonder this woman didn’t care that her son was raping toddlers. It doesn’t adversely affect his ability to spread his genes at all, so what’s the problem?
But men – not women – have invented things like codes of ethics and morals and rules of fair play. In a sense, they can “afford”, genetically speaking, to put such things above their own children. A man can have children with as many fertile women as he can lay, and somewhere deep in his unconscious he knows this, even if he does not actually have children by other mothers. Having a child is a much bigger investment for a woman, so she is biologically driven to excuse any of her offspring’s behavior, as the alternative is her genetic oblivion.
And by the way, if I had a son and found out he had raped a three-year-old, I absolutely would want him dead.
If we want a society of people with moral codes, we have to see to it that most children grow up with their biological fathers. Those are the only people who are likely to teach them morals.
