Fathers for Life
Fatherlessness, the lack of natural fathers in children's lives
| Home | In The News | Our Blog | Contact Us | Share


Fathers for Life Site-Search


 
Site Map (very large file)
Table of Contents
Activism
Children—Our most valued assets?
Educating Our Children for the Global Gynarchia
Child Support
Civil Rights & Social Issues
Families
Family Law
Destruction of Families
Fatherhood
Fatherlessness
Divorce Issues
Domestic Violence
Feminism
Gay Issues
Hate, Hoaxes and Propaganda
Health
Help Lines for Men
History
Humour
Law, Justice and The Judiciary
Mail to F4L
Men's Issues
Suicide
The Politics of "Sex"
Our Most Popular Pages
Email List
Links
References - Bibliography

You are visitor

since June 19, 2001

 
 

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

Model_A.gif (16249 bytes)

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.gif (9637 bytes)

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"

Model_C.gif (16341 bytes)

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)

_________________
  1. 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.

whiterose.gif (6796 bytes)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")