Daughter vs. father when the State becomes parent

This is a discussion of what happens to the daughter vs. father relationship when the State promotes the abolition of marriage and becomes the provider and protector of mothers and children.

Randy wrote:

http://watch.ctv.ca/news/latest/dad-vs-daughter/#clip61356

You have to ask: “Why have kids?” This is not right on all levels.

Randy,

I am aware of that issue. It is only the latest in a long string of similar issues.

Women are generally under the illusion that the father-hostile social engineering that is being done by judges is in the interest of equal rights for women, or, more specifically in this case, to promote “the best interests of children.”

Abolition of Marriage, daughter vs. father: Model A

When marriage is wanted: Model A

The reality of it is that both men and women increasingly lose their parental rights to Father State, with women to be breeders and child raisers (according to state-imposed rules), and with fathers being forced to be fathers in absentia and providers through increasingly onerous taxes on paternity, with the State calling all of the shots with respect to how children must become indoctrinated to become obedient servants of the State.

The feminist-dominated and -controlled education system plays a big part in the continuing and intensifying indoctrination of children.  A daughter vs. father relationship when the State is no longer the servant but the master of family relationships.

Abolition of Marriage, daughter vs. father: Model B

When marriage is not wanted, and the State is wanted as the Provider and Protector for Mothers and Children

Unfortunately, the answer to your question of, “Why have kids?”, is that increasing numbers of adults have fewer and fewer children, with many — now going on 30 percent — having no intention of ever having any children at all. Except for those who are unaffected by feminist social engineering to bring about the depopulation of Mother Earth, the consequence of it all is that the populations of developed nations and of increasing numbers of developing nations are dying out. I addressed that in many of the articles at Fathers for Life and its blog (e. g.: Demographic Winter).

There is nothing new under the sun. The methods for disfranchisement of parents were a big part of the Bolshevik agenda in the early days of the USSR.  The vanishing daughter vs. father relationship is just one unavoidable aspect of the abrogation of the family.

There was the wish to deconstruct the institution of the family, so that out of the resulting ruins and rubble of society a bigger and better socialist state could be constructed. That resulted in social calamities that were in short order addressed by the USSR, in order to extricate itself from the social chaos of its own creation.

Free love, as the early communists called it, is today called sexual freedom.
See The Russian Effort to Abolish Marriage, The Atlantic Monthly, July 1926
(See also a more exhaustive history of the evolution and destructive social impact of Soviet divorce laws)

Abolition of Marriage, daughter vs. father: Model_C

The unavoidable consequence of the State becoming the Provider and Protector of Mothers and Children

In the long run, the USSR (and its affiliated nations) never escaped the escalating chaos that it had caused for itself by its early family-hostile policies. For instance, the population of the Russian Federation is currently in the order of 140 million and will by 2045 have shrunk to 70 million. Incredibly, though, the Russian divorce laws were imported — verbatim — to the USA in the mid-1940s and became, through the efforts of feminist law societies, part of family-hostile legislation and law in the USA, from where they were then exported to all nations in the so-called “free” West.

What Randy found to be objectionable in the daughter vs. father relationship depicted in the CTV video clip is all that can remain of such relationships.  Those relationships need to be nurtured from start to end, but they cannot thrive, let alone survive or come into existence, when the State becomes the provider and protector of mothers and children.

The UN's vision of the future world population

The UN’s vision of the future world population

In the last days of his regime, Hitler had these thoughts on disfranchising parents (especially fathers but even more so bachelors who refused to become fathers) but with the aim of producing new human material for the construction of a bigger and better German army. Do the fascists currently in power in the developed nations have goals that are any different?  Not really, they wish to disfranchise men as much now as Hitler and cohort did, except that the current powers want to go one more step.  They wish to reduce the world population as well, down to less than a billion people, and they are succeeding with that.

–Walter
http://fathersforlife.org

__________
See also: Abolition of marriage, consequences, May 28, 2011 by Walter

This entry was posted in Family, Feminist Jurisprudence, Men's Issues, Social-Destruction Enterprise, The New World Order. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Daughter vs. father when the State becomes parent

  1. Barbara Kay wrote a commentary on this case in a National Post article, “Anti-family chickens come home to roost”,
    http://www.nationalpost.com/todays_paper/story.html?id=611049

    She stated, “That neither the lawyer nor the judge immediately dismissed the suit as frivolous is a perfect example of anti-family ideological chickens coming home to roost.

    By coincidence, just as I was doing a slow burn over that story’s implications, I happened to be reading a chapter called “Restoring the Pro-Family State” in a newly-published book, Oh, Oh, Canada! A Voice from the Conservative Resistance. The author, William Gairdner, gave eloquent voice to my indignation.” –end quote

    Book-information and ordering information for the self-published book is accessible at William Gairdner’s blog, at http://www.williamgairdner.com/oh-oh-canada/

    The last word on this belongs to Barbara Kay: “Predictably, Oh, Oh, Canada! was self-published after numerous rejections by mainstream publishers.”

Comments are closed.