Fatherhood is now Sculpted into a form of Slavery

The common denominator isn’t always evident but is necessary for breaking down and figuring out an equation. Labor is a commodity that has been used to build society. It’s the most costly of all expenses in business. When labor is cheap profits soar. Slavery is an example of this lucrative arrangement but of human ownership and exploitation per unethical capitalistic gains. The human element is exempt from the equation of fatherhood too.

The real value is often masked by a facade covering what lies within. Through the course of converting our natural human resources to government currency (money) is what eventually, with the help of misandry, led to the ability to sever the direct link of the family to men. Prior to the money men’s assets, directly linked to their ability to provide, were personally attached to the resources they secured. As with the female’s assets, the only way to receive them was to be in direct contact. To reveal the cause of the problem we must dig out the common denominator—e.g. sustenance and what is tangible and attached to one’s person.

As a past remnant of the trade-to-currency conversion process, credit was, only a few decades ago, considered a bad thing in which case you had more financial integrity if you had everything paid off. Credit and I-owe-yous didn’t count for much other than financial debt and failure. As government currency was originally backed by gold coins, a man’s labor was also attached to him in a genuine state too. Until Equal Employment Opportunity was implemented men retained their exclusive assets.

As a common means of exchange, government currency was developed, replacing trade. It bound people to serve a common master, restricting a free exchange of goods outside the government’s interests and control. The person was no longer directly attached to the skill or labor performed and assets secured. The love of money soon replaced the love of the father and fatherhood is now sculpted into a form of slavery.

In converting male assets to finances, government currency allowed slavery, in effect taking away the direct in-person value of men as well as fathers with their own children. (This also applied to women via alimony with no reciprocal female asset exchange.) Nothing else but money (government currency) is even counted toward providing for children, yet children do not eat money. Again, the common denominator is masked. The resourceful father originally provided food from his skills as a hunter or as a farmer or maybe as a builder in the trade for food or other valuable supplies needed to survive (e.g. coal, firewood, lumber).

In addition, the child was no longer allowed to be involved in this process to learn from the father, he/she not only to be given and receive these goods directly by, and in the presence of, the father, but deprived the opportunity to learn the same skills from the father’s influence(which comes under fatherhood) that allowed him to acquire them when he was a boy. This includes his personal expression and talents applied to certain tasks performed. Thus, a major part is now missing that attached one’s person to sustenance. A child learned through love, affection and appreciation, often developed through this process, to become a healthy and capable adult. Persistence, resilience and resourcefulness were valuable traits acquired in such character development. This attachment being replaced by money is also evident in personal values applied to gift exchange when in the past a homemade item had more value (a real person/character attachment) than something bought from the store. Tools and other valuable items handed down from one’s father(a part of fatherhood) were personally attached in the same way, often with first-hand demonstrations of their proper usage as a part of the gift-giving process. [I recall my grandpa telling me during his demonstration to have the hammer or saw do most of the work rather than the owner/user of the tool. “I bought this tool to have it do the work” I recall him telling me as he demonstrated the glide of the saw and leverage applied to how to strike and where to grasp the hammer.]

Now the father is not only exempt but exploited for the mother by the government financially using the child as a token to do so–extort money while detached from the father’s personal identity/existence ‘supported’ by his forced absence. A child of the past got to experience the love directly from the father through the resources he provided instead of through his absence by money (government currency) extorted from him and given to the mother absent of his connection to his children. The process that developed good character, a better life and a higher quality of people is now extracted from our human existence.

A sense of accomplishment is important in a child’s development to adulthood but is shared with one’s parent, to include bonding and attachment, it is much more complete. When fathers are ruled out of their children’s lives and required to pay more money because of it, we are not only enforcing slavery but the combined deprivation of fathers’ love of their children and their children’s love of their fathers as well as a very valuable developmental process(all collectively comes under fatherhood).

When living in a house, what provides the character, the house or the people living in it? People, right? This same concept applies to fatherhood and what a father provides but now with his person plucked from the equation–house, children and family environment.

Although one does not need to be religious to accept a sound concept followed by many, is our Heavenly Father and his love looked at with money in mind? No. Why then is not the same concept applied to all fathers and their children?