Robert Stacy McCain has the whole story.

Excerpt:

Say hello to Soya Keaveney, shown in a bikini photo she posed for at age 12, when the British girl was featured in a July 2008 magazine article:

Wearing a skimpy bikini and flaunting herself in an overtly sexual manner, Soya looks every bit the wannabe glamour model. . . .
Soya never goes out without putting on eyeliner and mascara, although once at school she’s often told to remove it by her teachers. Shockingly, she also frequently wears padded bras, short skirts, cropped tops, high heels and fishnet tights.

And now, the sequel:

A SCHOOLGIRL who posed aged 12 for controversial bikini pictures in a magazine is now pregnant at 15 — to the joy of her mum. . . .
Soya got pregnant by a 17-year-old boyfriend who is allowed by Janis to stay overnight at the family home.
Jobless single mum Janis, 48, said she was delighted because the council will now have to give her a bigger house. . . .
She added: “Our three-bedroom place was already overcrowded with her sisters Coco and Ritzy, her brother Tarot, Soya’s boyfriend Jake and one of her sister’s babies.
“Once the new baby comes the council will have to find us a place with four or five bedrooms. . . .
“I’m sure she’ll make a wonderful mum and will teach her children discipline like I have.”

So “mum” Janis, 48, has apparently never had a husband or a job, and lives with her four children, one of them already herself a mother and the other now pregnant by the 17-year-old boyfriend whom Janis permitted to spend the night in their 3-bedroom public housing apartment. All of this social pathology is subsidized by the British taxpayer!

But there’s more. I just posted about this single mother of ten children who is receiving £30,000-a-year in benefits.

Excerpt:

A mother-of-ten who nets more than £30,000-a-year in benefits has begged for charity donations to help raise her brood – because her state ‘wage’ is not enough.

Moira Pearce, 34, has insisted her weekly government handout of £600 is insufficient to feed and clothe her children and she needs donations to survive.

The single mum – whose kids are fathered by four ex-partners – has insisted her range of child and family allowance benefits do not meet her weekly outgoings.

Her annual payments funded by the public purse work out at a staggering £31,200-a-year – or £3,120 per child.

Ms Pearce – who lives with unemployed ex-boyfriend Mark Austin, 19, seven daughters and three sons – now wants extra help to save her from going under.

Recall another recent story I posted about that has yet another example of single motherhood by choice – subsidized by the feminist welfare state.

Excerpt:

She tells her children to do as she says and not as she does.

But the words of mother of 14 Joanne Watson – who receives more than £2,000 a month in state handouts – have fallen on deaf ears.

Her 15-year-old daughter Mariah is pregnant, the father has ‘left the scene’, and the youngster is about to start living off benefits.

Mrs Watson, 40, is raising her giant brood alone after parting from her husband John, 46, three years ago, and breaking up with subsequent partner Craig le Sauvage, 35, last year.

Despite this, she has still managed to squirrel away enough cash for a £1,600 breast enhancement and a sunbed. She claims she has always encouraged her daughters to use contraception – but, inevitably, it seems they would rather follow the family tradition.

Mariah’s pregnancy comes after Mrs Watson’s oldest daughter Natasha, 22, got pregnant with her son Branford, now six, when she was 16. Her second eldest daughter Shanice, 19, also got pregnant at 16 with her 22-month-old son Marley.

Mariah says she has no concerns about becoming a teenage mother, as it seems the most natural thing in the world. Initially, she and her child will be supported by the taxpayer.

She is expected to move into a housing complex for single mothers and will receive supplementary benefit and child allowance for her baby.

The youngster, who is due to have a boy, said: ‘I’m not nervous. I’ve been around babies my whole life so I know what to expect and that I can handle it. The father isn’t involved and I don’t want him to be either. I’m really excited and think I will be a great mum.’

And studies show that this is being passed on from mother to daughter.

Excerpt:

Girls who grow up without their fathers are at more at risk of becoming pregnant while still teenagers, long-term studies in the US and New Zealand suggest.

Researchers say the absence of biological fathers from the home is the most significant factor for teenage pregnancy.

The link between a father’s absence and teenage girls having sex has long been noted, but many researchers have attributed it to factors associated with divorce such as poverty and family conflict. But the new findings suggest the link is more direct.

The study’s author, Bruce Ellis, said: “These findings may support social policies that encourage fathers to remain in families with their children.” This would not apply to families with high conflict or violence.

Dr Ellis, who teaches at the University of Canterbury in Christchurch, said the findings warranted serious attention in Australia, which has the sixth highest teenage pregnancy rate in the world, according to an article published Medical Journal of Australia last month.

Dr Ellis worked with teams of scientists from the Christchurch School of Medicine and three US universities. Nearly 800 American and New Zealand girls were tracked from early in life to age 18.

The study revealed that the earlier a father left, the greater the risk of teenage pregnancy. Rates increased from about one in 20 in the US sample and one in 30 in the NZ sample for girls whose fathers were present, to one in three in the US and one in four in NZ for girls whose father left early in their life. Early absence was defined as the first five years of a girl’s life.

Girls who grew up in otherwise socially and economically privileged homes were not protected, Dr Ellis said.

When a woman grows up in a home where money is delivered by government check, she has no idea what men are for. She chooses men solely based on physical appearance, popularity, and peer approval, and she has no idea what love really looks like between men and women. That’s why they repeat the mistakes of their mothers. And it’s not a problem that can be solved by confiscating more money from working fathers and giving it to single mothers – even wealthy single mother homes are not immune. If men are not seen as protectors, providers and moral/spiritual leaders in the home they grow up in, then they will choose “bad boy” predatorial men as sexual partners, using shallow criteria to judge them – like the 180-second rule. This is exactly what feminism dictates, since feminism denies that men have the traditional sex roles of protector, provider and moral/spiritual leader. Young women growing up in single mother families have learned to resent men who make exclusive truth claims, especially about religion, and exclusive moral claims, too. They prefer the moral relativist men, who have postmodernist/universalist views of religion. The only difference in men that they know is strictly on physical appearance – what else are men supposed to do other that look good and be fun?

I think that this social trend is most reasonably blamed on Labor Party MP Harriet Harman, the most anti-family, anti-marriage, anti-father politician the UK has ever seen. Her militant feminist policies have taken money away from working fathers in intact marriages in order to redistribute it to women who choose to have premarital sex and then to get pregnant out of wedlock. This is now considered “normal” in the UK, and it’s because of Harriet Harman’s feminism-inspired push against traditional marriage, which she views as sexist. It is no surprise to anyone in the know that the fist generation of militant socialist feminists would raise the first generation of unmarried mothers. Single motherhood is the direct result of feminism – they want to replace men with government handouts.

Read more to find out more about how fatherlessness harms children, and leads to child poverty and child abuse. We have to stop this, and the only way to do that is to get informed and to persuade others. We can’t continue to hurt children like this.

Related posts

• New study finds that teens who lose their virginity are more likely to divorce
• New study finds that cohabitation damages children
• New peer-reviewed paper highlights the benefits of pre-marital chastity/abstinence
• Does being a virgin before marriage affect marital stability?
• How more compassion and less moral judgments increases teen pregnancy
• Can a person be a feminist and still believe in marriage?
• What happens when the government pays people to have babies out-of-wedlock?
• New survey finds women more sexually active than men in high school
• Research to help you understand the “hook-up” culture on campus
• Why do feminist academics think that feminism has empowered women?
• Who is really responsible for the abolition of marriage? Men or feminists?
• Who is to blame for the hook-up culture?
• How the feminist welfare state causes generations of fatherlessness
• Obama’s new proposals penalize married couples and stay-at-home parents
• How feminism’s war against men ends up hurting women
• Less than half of 7 to 21 year old women think marriage precedes child-bearing
• How socialism undermines the traditional family in Sweden
• What causes women to become single mothers, and how are children affected?
• Which family configuration is best for raising children?
• New study shows that children of working mothers live unhealthier lives
• New Scientist article shows why fathers are necessary for children’s well-being

• New study finds that cohabitation damages children
• New peer-reviewed paper highlights the benefits of pre-marital chastity/abstinence
• Does being a virgin before marriage affect marital stability?