Mr. D. Coward, a recent translator of Dumas, is a worried man. He has written in to point out that a goodly number of French writers, from Rousseau to Sartre and Duras, grew up without a father or heartily disliking the father they grew up with. Flaubert despised Flaubert senior, and Baudelaire detested his step-father. Fathers, absent or unloving, provided suitably disposed minds with reasons for anguish and resentment which proved to be money in the literary bank. Their (presumably the "minds' ") miseries gave them an edge over those who bequeathed them only loose emotional change and smaller quarrels with the world.
So, we would all be better off - and have more creative edges - without the bother of a "father". I stand with Mr. Coward. It boils down to the odious institution of "family" does it not. Family life is not the kind of life people want. Let us then work towards the abolition of the "family" and all the baggage that comes with it. The society of the future will be utterly different from society hitherto.
I found mine more a nuisance than anything else. Once he fell off a tram and every one turned green. Miss Potter appears to be an interested party: she has written in to point out that in the Globe's current Julius Cæsar, "a play that is notorious for rejecting everything female (as when Cassius complains that 'our fathers' minds are dead, / And we are governed wth our mothers' spirits'), it [sic] also balances the laddish [sic] opening with an ending that gives a brief glimpse of music and mystery." I can't honestly see what she is getting at though. Is any one among our membership likely to be toddling along?
If you are God, Sydney, then I am Father Superior. I must, in such a position, defend inferior fathers, too! They may be superfluous, but evolution obviously rates sexual reproduction very highly! Fathers may be superfluous, in vitro fertilisation renders them so, but what is necessary?
It's the idea of them sticking around after the act that is wrong. Kleines c's father was presumably like most of them in that having acted he presumed ownership for the next twenty years or so. Does not the member resent having been owned?