|
 |
 |
Family Models
| The models contained in the following text box describe three possible different sets
of relationships, each between fathers and mothers, between parents and their children,
and between parents, children and the state. The models are based on information
contained in Appendix B of
Suffering
Patriarchy, by Robert Lindsay Cheney Jr.
The models mention the term "parens patriae". That literally means
"parent of the country". [1]
|
Model A
Patriarchal Model
With Model A, both father and mother are joined as one holy union, under
law, with child and State subordinate to family.
Model A provides for a high success rate for individuals and for a divorce
rate of about one percent.
Model B
"Equity" and Gender-Neutral Model
Model B is nothing more than a fraud. When it comes into existence
it immediately devolves into Model C. The impossible condition of
"equality" cannot exist in law. Under both Model B and C the State is the
true parent and decides everything.
Model B is based upon the "rational person" model of logic.
However, as Vert Vergon, the father of "Joint Custody" in California, admitted,
this model doesn't work. Every time a judge interferes in this model, he will
devolve his decision to Model C (the real Model B).
Model B works where there is no conflict. However, that is the true
fraud, because the State, acting under the doctrine of Parens Patriae, wants both parties
to admit themselves and "volunteer" into Model B. The State wants this
because it understands that once it is the arbitrator (or master), it controls the family
(the American base-unit of production) and thereby assumes the
Model C
function.
Once the State assumes Model C, any conflict comes under the
purview of the government, who is then the real father or husband.
Model C is factually the antebellum South's slavery-based model.
Model C
Radical 3rd-Wave Feminist Model –
"Enslavement", "Protected Class", "Entitlement"
Under "Entitlements", this is the real mode to which Model B
will devolve whenever it is implemented. Under Model C:
-
Mother and child are viewed as one, as "protected class";
-
The State, as the ultimate parent, rules over all;
-
The father is enslaved, and
-
Family wealth is transferred to the State under pretense of
"crisis" and "the best interests of the child".
Model C causes a low success rate for individuals and a divorce rate in
the order of 63 percent.
—Suffering
Patriarchy, by Robert Lindsay Cheney Jr.;
Appendix B
©2002 Robert Lindsay Cheney Jr
(Posted here with permission by the author) |
|
_________________
-
Parens Patriae means literally, "parent of the
country." It refers traditionally to the role of
STATE as sovereign and guardian of
persons under legal disability. Parens Patriae originates from the English common law
where the King had a royal prerogative to act as guardian to persons with legal
disabilities such as infants. (Quoted from: PARENS PATRIAE....GOVERNMENT AS PARENT,
Barefoot's World)
The family models shown and described above have been
expanded and at the same time simplified to show the evolution of the
relationships and the relative powers of men and women, families,
people, government and business over time. That was done by "Angry Harry"
(a pseudonym used by a man who is eminently qualified to write about
such things). Those models by Angry Harry, explaining things in
the greater context of recent and current modern society, are as
follows.
Those diagrams give you the picture, but you would miss
out a lot if you were not to spend about ten to twelve minutes in
reading the information, advice and instructions offered in the essay by
Angry Harry that contains them:
Why Governments Love Feminism, 2008-11-09, by Angry Harry
Feminism has very little to do with equality between the
genders, and it also has very little to do with the rights of
women.
However, as Angry Harry explains in his essay, feminism has
much to do with the growth of government, with the escalating
destruction of our families and with the ever-increasing deterioration
of the quality of our lives.
All of the models shown in this web page may be too simple, to clear,
too polarized to permit one to relate to the issues surrounding the
government's role in the deliberate deconstruction of the traditional
nuclear family. If
so, then here is a very practical article that brings all of the models
into very sharp and clear focus:
American Thinker
The 'Conservative Rationale' for Gay Marriage?, October 19, 2012
By Doug Mainwaring
From the article:
No-fault divorce allows one party to end the marriage bond for any
reason or no reason. In effect, the state redefined marriage by
removing the presumption of permanence. Marriage became a
temporary arrangement rather than a permanent union of a man and a
woman. No-fault divorce was supposed to increase personal freedom.
But the result of this legal change has been state involvement in
the minutiae of family life, as it resolves disagreements over
custody, visitation, and child support. Family courts decide where
children go to school, or to church. I've even heard of a family court
judge choosing a teenaged-girl's prom dress because the divorced parents
couldn't resolve the issue.
... One might have thought that no-fault divorce would "get the
government out of the divorce business." In fact, it did no such
thing. The government got out of the front end of deciding what
counted as a valid reason for divorce. But the government
reappeared on the back end, in a far more intrusive form[.]
________________
Additional Reading:
Marriage is found to be associated with
substantially lower rates of mortality, for both men and women.
Married men are predicted to be some 7.2 percent less likely to
die over the period [1993 to 2000] than unmarried men.
For women, the effect is smaller.
Women married in 1991 are approximately 4.1 percent less likely to
die over the period 1993 to 2000 than otherwise similar
unmarried women.
|
|
 The White Rose
Thoughts are Free |
__________________
Posted 2003 04 28
Updates:
2008 11 10 (added diagrams by Angry Harry, on the
role of government in social conditions)
2012 11 01 (added link to and quote from American Thinker article on "The
'Conservative Rationale' on Gay Marriage")
|
|
