In the first chapter, the author Robert Lindsay takes one of the foundations of Feminist's hatred of the Patriarchal system:
Suffering Patriarchy: An Analytical Exploration Into the Promise of the Forbidden Planet
Society clear saw the benefits of Patriarchy, and due to this fact, made laws and customs that would bind the female kinship system under the control of the male kinship system, in order to assure the benefits of the most successful model: Patriarchy. Society thereby controlled not only the sexuality of the woman in which to accomplish this, but gave the Father purpose. To do this, he thereby had complete unfettered control over his family, which was his ‘property’, legally defined as ‘chattel’.Ah well...read up, so we can better understand how things will become when Hillary "It Takes A Village" is the next President of the US of A...
This issue of women and children being ‘property’ is greatly contested by the modern feminist movement. In fact, they immediately liken this issue as being similar in nature as to being ‘owned’ like a slave or an animal. This vexatious assumption posed by the modern feminist, although correct in label is wrong in thesis. For in reality, when the state assumes these wives and children under it’s doctrine of Parens Patriæ, you better believe they are in fact property, (ergo: chattels), under the states law and domain... The feminist however; don’t make a peep about that reality... The fact is, that somebody owns our children…but we now live in a society mulct at that recognition, and few are afraid to rise up—and claim what is by law and by nature their own legacy. Instead, they meekly mouth the state provided pabulum, that they will “take responsibility” and act “in the best interests of the child” to aid in their own destruction, to the delight of feminists and communists and elites whom continually feed off of this self denial and self-imposed destruction.
However, when the males enforce their natural rights to their own children and property, well, then they are viewed as being oppressive. Somehow, the more tyrannical state; is not! (When they seize and claim children in “the child’s best interests). Of course the common law reasoning for allowing the Male to ‘own’ both his wife and children stemmed not so much from a need to control, but rather of one to protect and be responsible for his own family.. Giving the Father ‘ownership’ of both his wife and his children allowed him to legally bind his family and protect his family from unwanted intrusion or threat. Not only that: Fathers don’t need state subsidy to raise their children—and this is factually, the real threat against the modern state. Clearly, our Forefathers understood that the “Village” could not take care of people as well as Fathers and Families could take care of the village.