17-month-old Roy Jones was beaten to death on Saturday evening by his mother’s badboy boyfriend, who said the little boy was acting like a sissy. Pedro Jones, the child-killing boyfriend, said he was trying to “make him act like a boy.” Although Jones called the child “my baby,” he was not, in fact, the boy’s father.
As we have revealed on The Spearhead before, male infanticide is already a serious problem in the US, and little boys are murdered at a significantly higher rate than girls. Although mothers are involved in most of these cases, many children are killed by men as well, a fact that feminists often point to in order to condemn men. However, biological fathers are very rarely responsible for killing children, so which men are usually responsible? Why, babymomma’s boyfriend, of course.
In the HuffPo article this aspect of the case is naturally ignored in favor of the gay-bashing angle. However, suggesting that the child was a victim of a homophobic attack is either naive or disingenuous. A 17-month-old child does not display many sex-specific behaviors, and only a psychopath or mentally retarded individual would expect them to do so (this may be the case with Pedro Jones). To me, Mr. Jones’ explanation sounds more like an excuse he made after acting on some deep-seated impulse that has some instinctive basis.
Males of many species tend to view unrelated males – including children – as competitors, and will sometimes kill them. This behavior is documented in humans as well. When we have a set of laws that encourages women to remove their children from their biological fathers’ oversight and engage in sexual adventurism with a string of different men, these incidents are bound to happen more frequently than they would otherwise, no matter what the stated motivation.
Biological fathers – like mothers – tend to have a special bond with their children that is not shared by other men. Certainly there are some that do not, and there are many men who are good people and would never harm a child that wasn’t theirs, but we’re talking about tendencies here, and in a country of hundreds of millions of people these will have an impact.
As an example, say a fundamentalist Christian who abhorred homosexuality had a son who displayed some effeminate characteristics as a little boy. This probably happens fairly frequently, as homosexuality often begins to manifest itself first as gender identity disorder at a fairly young age (17 months is obviously far too early, though). Certainly, the father would probably be worried, and might even want to change it somehow, but if some other man stepped in and said “I’ll fix this boy by punching and choking him” the father’s instincts would kick in and he’d probably reach for a shotgun and tell the guy to get his hands off the boy. Even if their children are not perfect in their own eyes, a father’s first impulse is to defend them. Other men, not so much. This is clearly reflected in the numbers, which suggest that a biological father is the least likely of any caregiver to have a child die in his care.
Michael Rowe, who wrote the article in HuffPo, suggests that it says something terrible about society when a toddler is beaten to death for “acting like a girl.” Of course it does. But it’s no worse than an infant or child being beaten to death for crying (probably what the killer meant when he suggested the boy was acting like a girl), for being naughty or, as was the case with Ethan Stacy, simply for being inconvenient.
Rowe is doing the job of feminists by shifting the blame for child killing onto gay-hating psychopaths when the real problem – the reason so many children needlessly die – is that they have been removed from the person who has an innate biological mandate to protect them: their father. And it is Rowe’s feminist allies, who have devoted enormous energy to kicking fathers out of their children’s lives, who are to blame for that.
