Monday, June 5, 2023

Fathers are also important

It is not contestable that the father, or the male parent, is the source and custodian of the kingdom, especially in this world of humans, plants and animals.

The fact that a family can grow without the presence or input of the father proves a number of factors among them the resilience of the mother to provide for her offspring, and the inefficacy of the male parent to provide for what he had sown or to act in a paternal capacity.

But neither outcome cancels out the epistemological inherence of the word father to the female parent. A mere mention of one implies the other. This is the first difficulty encountered at every attempt to tear one from the other.

That fathers have abused, tainted, disrespected, hated and tyrannized their spouses, children and general womenfolk proves prior false guidance from history, society, and observation. The immaculate value of a woman to the existence of the human kingdom is incontestable. Failure to receive such guidance isn’t proof of absence of knowledge in the pages of history or within the universe, concerning the efficacy of a mother to the growth, cheerfulness, and the glory of the kingdom.

That fathers have been unfaithful to their spouses proves a lack of sufficient sanctions against this behavior, and it is not evidence that fathers are intrinsically prostitutes by their nature.

That men are more physically endowed to harm, disfigure, and murder than women, isn’t proof that men are inherently barbaric.

That there are an increasing number of female headed households, and that this outcome tends to also be the desired outcome, is an effect in some cases of female chauvinism. It is also a result of the belief, held or alleged to be held, that women are superior to men.

The belief that men are superior to women, in view of their dominance, through being greater in quality, quantity, worth or merit, and rank or status, cannot be cured by the belief that women are superior to men.

Both tendencies are guilty of an inflated estimate of one’s own merit which is usually manifested by arrogance. Neither tendency is superlative. At bottom, comparison between a man and woman is rhetorical. There can be no comparison between them. Rather, each completes the meaning of the other. Each is a supplementary angle that, when added to a specified other, produces a right angle. The introduction of the one onto the other forms a satisfactory or balanced whole. This is the order of the cosmos. People, as everything else in nature, have a distinctive end to achieve or a function to fulfill.

But that legal framework, which encouragement to compliance to and enforcement of presupposes that maleness or femaleness, facilitates capacity to produce sex producing gametes (spermatozoa and ova), bodily readiness for penetration and to be penetrated, is proof of sufficient skill or knowledge to father or mother a child, is an arbitrary legislation.

It is clear that under such a framework the only invited condition necessary for motherhood and fatherhood is capacity to sow the seed which results in fertilization. Yet maleness or femaleness as such does not provide you with the knowledge required for parenthood. Fertilization is constrained, and not freed, by law to run to its full and final conclusion.

Each act of non-compliance with such irrational law is punishable by imprisonment or death penalty. No rational law enforces plantation on unprepared and inhospitable soil. No rational law disregards the health, interests, consciousness, and security of the sowing pair to grow and keep the fruit of their labor.

Hegel said in so far as the acts of the individual harm others, their behavior is irrational. The function of law is therefore to bring rationality into human behavior, since only rational acts avoid social harm. And the function of state is therefore not to compound personal harm or misery by issuing arbitrary and therefore irrational commands, but rather to increase, through its laws, the aggregate of rational behavior.

Since fatherless and motherless households increase the tendency for indelicate and indecent child upbringing, that legislation which forbids choice of parentage is more anti-child and less pro-child.

That nearly all feminists believe that most world laws were designed by men to serve the interest of men may be true in some cases. But no male parent is served or uplifted by actions or rules of actions which:

ÔÇó prematurely deplete womenfolk before their naturally chosen time,
ÔÇó force an entry into their youth,
ÔÇó Fast-forward youth into motherhood or fatherhood, for which there has been no prior motherly or fatherly training and no prior provision for the growth and security of the resultant child.

No other end but agony, hatred, scarcity and disunity within the kingdom is possible from pointlessly populating the land with indecently and indelicately grown children for whom there is no shelter, food, clothing or skill on how to produce, own and keep them.

Changing mindsets away from these acts of large-scale barbarism is handicapped by equalization in the majority mindset of the requirement for and practice of toil and hardship as faithful human virtues with the requirement for and practice of tolerance for undeserved and preventable hardship as faithful, deserved and inevitable human virtues.

The second handicap is that the Church has been the staunch commander of all the earthly forces that entrenched such anti-child mindset behind the veil of the all-knowing and unlimited God. Since the Church is an institution created by and for God, clarity on which acts of the Church endears it to God and which repel it from God, is obscure since motivations for all acts of the Church are presumed by the masses to be Pro-God and encouraged by the Church to be believed as directed by God.

In other words the Church has been instrumental in the enslavement of women especially the “overworked drudges of the poor and even the pampered daughters of wealth” under the veil of God through its “multiply (indiscriminately) and replenish the earth” doctrine, as the highest possible conception of virtuous conduct.

The requisite ethics is the limitation of the population within the means of subsistence. The primal division of labor need no longer be that the business of man is to fight, of women to produce fighters. The decree “Thy husband shall rule over thee” couldn’t imply no reciprocal duty by the husband to learn and be led by thy spouse on matters where thee is less endowed.

All custom, all tradition, all religion, all law, all science, all knowledge that disjoints man from woman, son from father, daughter from mother is pro-something, but that something isn’t pro-life.

That “marriage stales love, brings respect into contempt, outrages all the privacies and limits the growth of both parties”, and that “they who marry do ill” is an effect and a reflection of the blind alley to which we have been brought by the anti-man and anti-woman philosophies that underlie the common view about both sexes.

In reading the nauseating accounts of the learned elite trying to obscure the fact that fathers are the custodians of the human weight itself and mothers are the joy and the seventh heaven of it all, nothing seems clearer that therein lays their greatest uselessness.

Observe the semantic handicap contained in their every attempt to dissect man from woman. There can be no conception of man without woman and no conception of woman without man. Male implies female. Both institutions are as interdependent as a producer is to a consumer and as interrelated as private property is to markets. These facts are as immovable and as old as human history itself.

A call for a regard for “fathers are important” is not a call for the economic or individualistic dependence of women on men or of men on women. It is also not a call for the evasion that the “basis of independence and of individuality is bread”. Each sex has a right of self-improvement and self-maintenance. But no father or son could replace the health, beauty, talent and goodness of mothers and daughters. Just as equally no mother or daughter could replace the health, beauty, talent and goodness of fathers and sons.

The needful ethic is for mothers and daughters of the world to “make it their business to study sex and control parentage ÔÇô never to have a child unless you want it and never want it (selfishly, for the pleasure of having a pretty plaything), unless you, yourself, alone or jointly with the father are able to provide for it.”

Put to an end the habit of seeding “little babies, helpless, voiceless little things, generated in lust, cursed with impure moral natures, cursed, prenatally, with the germs of disease, forced into the world to struggle and suffer, to hate themselves, to hate their mothers and their fathers for bearing them, to hate society and be hated by it in return”.

“Let the mothers (and daughters of this world) go free! “Let the children be pure love children, born of the mutual desire for parentage so that no more slaves be born, no more tyrants conceived.”

We need not use the most depraved and wicked man or woman as the standard with which to judge virtuous man and virtuous women and then infer from that judgment that men/women are depraved and wicked. Each sex has its own deficiencies and excesses. Neither extreme is a substitute for the Aristotelian duty of rational control and guidance of the irrational parts of the soul or of the Christian need to guard the affections and passions with a firm purpose.


Read this week's paper