Main Edition
US
FR
Main Edition
US
FR"Yes, it’s true: families can be a bit shit" Credit: Outnumbered/BBC
In 1883, on his deathbed, Karl Marx revealed a terrible secret to his daughter, Eleanor. It was a truth he had kept hidden for decades: in 1851, while his own wife was pregnant, Marx fathered an illegitimate son with the family maid, Helen DeMuth. To protect Marx’s public image, Friedrich Engels pretended to be the father, and the baby was taken from Helen and raised by a working-class family in London. Marx never sent any money to support him.
It would be easy enough to retort that Marx is hardly the first great thinker to have feet of clay. But in truth, his repudiation of paternal obligation wasn’t much of a departure from the utopian political vision he and Engels outlined. For since The Communist Manifesto was published, three years before the birth of Freddy DeMuth, perhaps its most controversial doctrine has been family abolition. In proposing this, the architects of socialism unleashed a vision that has since inspired many feminists and utopians — but that fails even more completely as a delivery-mechanism for heaven on earth than the flawed and fractious families we have.
The architects of communism took aim particularly at the bourgeois family. In Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State, Engels argued that the bourgeois family was a recent invention, rationalised as eternal, that served as a means of perpetuating inequality. The Communist Manifesto denounced this con-trick as a fake universal that, for the proletariat, didn’t even deliver joy or intimacy. Instead, it served as a machine for manufacturing new factory operatives: a cynical enterprise in which proletarian children were “transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labour”.
More recent critics of the family take this even further. It’s not just the bourgeois family that has to go. It’s every family — even those of the poor, vulnerable, oppressed and helpless, for whom the alternative to relying on blood kin is destitution. This is the argument made by anti-family theorist Sophie Lewis in Abolish the Family: that the revolution must come for everyone. The family, she says, “is to be abolished even when it is aspired to, mythologised, valued, and embodied by people who are neither white nor heterosexual, neither bourgeois nor colonisers”. For it’s only in “collectively letting go of this technology of privatisation, the family, that our species will truly prosper”.
She echoes Marx and Engels in viewing such affective bonds not as a space of respite from the market, but as inextricable from it and a crucial site of its reproduction. For Lewis, though, the harm done by particularistic love within families goes further than perpetuating economic injustice. Families are not just delivery-mechanisms for violence and cruelty. They are sexism, racism, chauvinism writ small: “a microcosm of the nation-state”. As such, they are a tool of white cis-heteronormative oppression, employed to entrench wickedness of every kind.
This draws on a long tradition of Marxist feminism, for which family isn’t just a vehicle for reproducing capitalism but also a key means of oppressing women. Alexandra Kollontai, the earliest and most influential Marxist feminist, decried the particularistic affection granted to family members as “property love”. In Kollontai’s view, this love imposed profound negative consequences on women: the inconvenient calls such love of dependents can make on our time and resources is an impediment to women’s equal participation in public life. To solve this, she suggested, under communism children would be cared for by “society” in general, while “material and moral support” would be forthcoming for mothers.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeThanks Mary, for a much needed article. Working in adult social services, I have seen directly the unsustainable nature of our society having. In law, the primary duty of care for people over 18 rests with the state, above the family. As a society, we have somehow come to demand that we and our loved ones are cared for by the state, at the lowest possible cost to ourselves. The economic costs of this are no longer sustainable. It’s been depressing to watch over the last five years the only policy issue that seems to interest politicians is: “How can one keep as much of their own money while having their care needs met by a low-paid stranger?”. There is a chronic shortage of social care staff and good social care services. This is the obvious outcome when we have chosen collectively to marketise care, pay the lowest bidder, and import our care from abroad.
There are a myriad of reasons for how we ended up in this state, some of which you touch on above. It becomes very difficult (though not impossible with willingness and creativity) to care for our families and neighbours when everyone in the family is at work, and many families can no longer afford to stay at home to care for their relatives. I believe we have also seen a “professionalisation of care”. Often people feel they don’t have the skills, strength or the knowledge to care for their family because we have made care something technocratic, rather than a fundamental aspect of human relations.
That we still have writers and academics postulating the abolition of the family and a greater socialisation of care belies their lack of experience of how terrible the social care system is functioning; it is often worse than a neglectful family. The only way we will resolve the crisis that has engulfed our hospitals is if we find a solution to those needing care following discharge; we are now, as a society, living with a chronic deficit of care. But I am pessimistic of this possibility while we insist on looking to the market and the state to find a solution to this inconvenient problem. As the working age to retirement ratio grows, the costs of care, even if paying care staff minimum wage, will not cover the costs of caring for all of us in our old age. Like most utopian systems, the bigger it gets, the closer it gets to collapse. Perhaps such a collapse will force us to return to familial and local relationships of lifelong, reciprocal love, duty and care. I hope so.
It may very well turn out that families will be thrown together again by circumstances and that they will have to operate along communal ideas where everything us shared, each has what they need and each contributes where they can. There’s nothing radical about that. But the problem could also be that people aren’t used to sharing and giving up something of themselves for others, but they may learn along the way. There is certainly strength in family structures and I can’t see people finding this anywhere else but in their family.
“From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”, the Marx saying you’ve re-phrased here, is a different idea at a family or duty-bound-but-voluntary level than when imposed by the State.
I agree that more love and care, within and extending beyond our families, can be learned in the doing, through the practice of caring for one another. And the care that an orphan, widow, outcast, or stranger (to use biblical language) might receive when “taken in” by volunteering families will have a different strength and character than anything Society in the abstract can offer.
But we certainly don’t do enough of that, even for children, so the State has a necessary role and always will, barring the realization of some libertarian (or other) utopia. For now, there is no true substitute for families, even “chosen” or extended ones.
“From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”, the Marx saying you’ve re-phrased here, is a different idea at a family or duty-bound-but-voluntary level than when imposed by the State.
I agree that more love and care, within and extending beyond our families, can be learned in the doing, through the practice of caring for one another. And the care that an orphan, widow, outcast, or stranger (to use biblical language) might receive when “taken in” by volunteering families will have a different strength and character than anything Society in the abstract can offer.
But we certainly don’t do enough of that, even for children, so the State has a necessary role and always will, barring the realization of some libertarian (or other) utopia. For now, there is no true substitute for families, even “chosen” or extended ones.
My father-in-law died this year after a decade suffering from Alzheimer’s disease. My mother-in-law (herself now in her early 80s) cared for him at home until the end. She never had a home help, carer, nurse or social worker visit the house. She saw their GP once or twice a year during this period when he had an accident or was in obvious pain. She also visited the hospital once a year for a specialist to check his medication. He died in his own bed surrounded by his family.
She was often begged to get help in or even to put him in a care home but she wouldn’t have it. She loved her husband and believed she had committed to caring for him in sickness and health. She is also of the generation that is uncomfortable with any strangers coming into her house.
Luckily her family lives round the corner and we’re able to help out. Her son uncomplainingly bathed his dad once a week and trimmed his beard, hair and nails. We cooked for them twice a week. My wife ran errands. And my Mother-in-law knew she could call us in an emergency – which became quite frequent towards the end (falls and the like).
It’s hard work but I find this natural way of caring for family much preferable to putting your old parents in some nursing home.
Your father-in-law, despite the horror of Alzheimer’s, was a very fortunate man to have a truly loving wife and family. My husband’s grandfather had a similar experience.
I’d rather jump off a bridge than be incarcerated in a nursing home.
I cared for my Mum as prime carer fir the last ten years of her life,a great privilege and joy. And it freed up my siblings to get on with their careers and caring for their families,paying their mortgages etc otherwise one of my siblings would have been under intolerable pressure. The other two being uninvolved and indifferent. It was so lucky that I was available,or was it God’s Plan. Only I did not have a career having been designated by the society around me from a young age the local “village idiot”,the odd one out,the “we don’t like you,you’re not like us,you’re different ” one so I was right there when the time came. For decades my Mum protected and provided a caring life for me so I was there when the tables got turned. Maybe I shouldn’t give this secret away but life as the rejected one out of the society around you is a very pleasant way to live,free of all the dross and crap most of society prizes like in this era reality tv shows like,in the 1970s some other dross,1980s likewise. Apart from the absence of any sexual intimacy which is an actual human psychological need,a solitary life has a lot going for it.
But doesn’t make good tv ads.
.
Sexual intimacy may be a human need – but it is not vital to human flourishing or happiness – as shown in the lives of several people I have known.
Sexual intimacy may be a human need – but it is not vital to human flourishing or happiness – as shown in the lives of several people I have known.
Your father-in-law, despite the horror of Alzheimer’s, was a very fortunate man to have a truly loving wife and family. My husband’s grandfather had a similar experience.
I’d rather jump off a bridge than be incarcerated in a nursing home.
I cared for my Mum as prime carer fir the last ten years of her life,a great privilege and joy. And it freed up my siblings to get on with their careers and caring for their families,paying their mortgages etc otherwise one of my siblings would have been under intolerable pressure. The other two being uninvolved and indifferent. It was so lucky that I was available,or was it God’s Plan. Only I did not have a career having been designated by the society around me from a young age the local “village idiot”,the odd one out,the “we don’t like you,you’re not like us,you’re different ” one so I was right there when the time came. For decades my Mum protected and provided a caring life for me so I was there when the tables got turned. Maybe I shouldn’t give this secret away but life as the rejected one out of the society around you is a very pleasant way to live,free of all the dross and crap most of society prizes like in this era reality tv shows like,in the 1970s some other dross,1980s likewise. Apart from the absence of any sexual intimacy which is an actual human psychological need,a solitary life has a lot going for it.
But doesn’t make good tv ads.
.
The social care system is not functioning because its underfunded. But the thing is, the money is there. It’s just in the pockets of the top 1%. If didn’t have that 1% and redistributed that money care and health could be funded properly. That is socialism.
That is indeed socialism – a system that has been tried from time to time and does not work as its naive adherents expect.
The problem with social care compared with family care is not because the money of the rich 1% can’t be stolen from them but the old biblical story of the good shepherd and the hireling shepherd.
Families on the whole care for and about their own relatives (of course there are plenty of exceptions) whereas the hireling carer does not usually have the same emotional and connectional ties with the cared for (again there are exceptions). All too often spouses and children struggle to care for months or years but when exhausted they take a break and social care takes over within a short time death follows.
My wife kept her demented and diabetic mother alive for a number of years at our home, albeit with some help from carers that she had a relationship with whereas whenever her mother went into hospital her insulin regime was never properly maintained because the nurses worked by formula and food was delivered at the convenience of the hospital schedule not the needs of the patient. In addition the nurses could not recognise when her mother was low in the way that my wife could.
The problem with families is that today the old model of family life – staying together for life and care for one’s vulnerable members – has irretrievably broken down; step-families, cohabitees, serial monogamy, single parenthood and so on. This makes caring for an elderly or sick relative much more complicated.
The problem with families is that today the old model of family life – staying together for life and care for one’s vulnerable members – has irretrievably broken down; step-families, cohabitees, serial monogamy, single parenthood and so on. This makes caring for an elderly or sick relative much more complicated.
The top 1% pay 27% of all tax.
It is not really a matter of money. Even supposing the rich 1% could be stripped of their wealth by selling off their houses, property, land, shareholdings, yachts and other possessions supposing they did not transfer much of it out of the jurisdiction much less money would be realised than calculated because the fire sale of their their possessions would, in the absence of the 1% buying, crash the prices of all these possessions which would in turn affect the wealth of others.
Supposing that that the money realised could somehow be directed solely to providing care for the elderly rather than being leached off elsewhere the net effect would be to bid up the cost of providing such welfare. The administrative cost and individual carers would benefit and some more people would be attracted by the extra money into providing care but would the overall level of care rise given that the carers would still be hireling carers? Not much I believe. Certainly much less than Jane Eyre’s fantasy would suggest.
In the meantime in the absence of a rich 1% investing in business enterprises and buying goods and services the economy of the country would decline and many would be worse off.
The 1% have been making these great investments of yours for 30 years and I can’t help but notice most of us have been getting poorer while they only get richer. But sure, stick to trickle down economics as a comfort blanket against the evils of “socialism”.
The 1% have been making these great investments of yours for 30 years and I can’t help but notice most of us have been getting poorer while they only get richer. But sure, stick to trickle down economics as a comfort blanket against the evils of “socialism”.
Whatever it is, it’s never enough. There are providers in this world, and there are leeches who will suck every ounce of blood dry. Sadly, this is an article from and about the latter.
And just imagine how much they’d pay if they didn’t hide most of it away in tax havens.
I do think there’s a case to get the mega corps to pay the tax they are supposed to. Not talking of stripping wealth, just that if they don’t pay their tax, at the rate the rest of us without access to tax havens do, they have hmrc on the doorstep with hefty consequences for tax evasion. Tax evasion gives big business an edge over small businesses too. In the UK now sunak has upped the corporation tax to 25%, their advantage is even greater. Its not really cricket.
I do think there’s a case to get the mega corps to pay the tax they are supposed to. Not talking of stripping wealth, just that if they don’t pay their tax, at the rate the rest of us without access to tax havens do, they have hmrc on the doorstep with hefty consequences for tax evasion. Tax evasion gives big business an edge over small businesses too. In the UK now sunak has upped the corporation tax to 25%, their advantage is even greater. Its not really cricket.
In NYC, the top 2% pay 54% of taxes – which is why the city is having fiscal problems now. Many of the 2% left during Covid and never returned. On the national level, almost half the population pays little or no federal taxes at all – a Progressive system indeed!
It is not really a matter of money. Even supposing the rich 1% could be stripped of their wealth by selling off their houses, property, land, shareholdings, yachts and other possessions supposing they did not transfer much of it out of the jurisdiction much less money would be realised than calculated because the fire sale of their their possessions would, in the absence of the 1% buying, crash the prices of all these possessions which would in turn affect the wealth of others.
Supposing that that the money realised could somehow be directed solely to providing care for the elderly rather than being leached off elsewhere the net effect would be to bid up the cost of providing such welfare. The administrative cost and individual carers would benefit and some more people would be attracted by the extra money into providing care but would the overall level of care rise given that the carers would still be hireling carers? Not much I believe. Certainly much less than Jane Eyre’s fantasy would suggest.
In the meantime in the absence of a rich 1% investing in business enterprises and buying goods and services the economy of the country would decline and many would be worse off.
Whatever it is, it’s never enough. There are providers in this world, and there are leeches who will suck every ounce of blood dry. Sadly, this is an article from and about the latter.
And just imagine how much they’d pay if they didn’t hide most of it away in tax havens.
In NYC, the top 2% pay 54% of taxes – which is why the city is having fiscal problems now. Many of the 2% left during Covid and never returned. On the national level, almost half the population pays little or no federal taxes at all – a Progressive system indeed!
Everything is ALWAYS underfunded Jane. Just precisely why has this oh so obvious socialist nirvana ever been obtained anywhere in the real world? Marxist Leninist regimes simply created far more brutal and equally unequal societies where the apparatchiks and nomenklatura got all the privileges. Of course they didn’t hesitate to shoot the workers in whose name these terrible states had been founded, when they got too uppity
Utopians who have absolutely no understanding of human nature always end up creating hell on Earth.
It’s worth remembering that you only get one chance to redistribute the money in the pockets of the 1%. After that it will never be created again to redistribute.
The problem is that a lot of the 1% haven’t been involved in the production of wealth, or in investing in other people’s production. So much of it is rent seeking, pure and simple, and manipulating the stock price estimates without changing underlying value. This means, in theory, you could confiscate _that_ money and have no effect on wealth creation.
See Roger Martin *Fixing the Game* for some of the reasons we got into this state and what we could do about it. https://rogerlmartin.com/lets-read/fixing-the-game
The 1% are not going to make that money again just to let you take it off them again, hence you can only do it once then it’s gone.
The 1% are not going to make that money again just to let you take it off them again, hence you can only do it once then it’s gone.
The problem is that a lot of the 1% haven’t been involved in the production of wealth, or in investing in other people’s production. So much of it is rent seeking, pure and simple, and manipulating the stock price estimates without changing underlying value. This means, in theory, you could confiscate _that_ money and have no effect on wealth creation.
See Roger Martin *Fixing the Game* for some of the reasons we got into this state and what we could do about it. https://rogerlmartin.com/lets-read/fixing-the-game
Sorry Jane, too many aspiring 1%ers in this crowd for that kind of talk.
That is indeed socialism – a system that has been tried from time to time and does not work as its naive adherents expect.
The problem with social care compared with family care is not because the money of the rich 1% can’t be stolen from them but the old biblical story of the good shepherd and the hireling shepherd.
Families on the whole care for and about their own relatives (of course there are plenty of exceptions) whereas the hireling carer does not usually have the same emotional and connectional ties with the cared for (again there are exceptions). All too often spouses and children struggle to care for months or years but when exhausted they take a break and social care takes over within a short time death follows.
My wife kept her demented and diabetic mother alive for a number of years at our home, albeit with some help from carers that she had a relationship with whereas whenever her mother went into hospital her insulin regime was never properly maintained because the nurses worked by formula and food was delivered at the convenience of the hospital schedule not the needs of the patient. In addition the nurses could not recognise when her mother was low in the way that my wife could.
The top 1% pay 27% of all tax.
Everything is ALWAYS underfunded Jane. Just precisely why has this oh so obvious socialist nirvana ever been obtained anywhere in the real world? Marxist Leninist regimes simply created far more brutal and equally unequal societies where the apparatchiks and nomenklatura got all the privileges. Of course they didn’t hesitate to shoot the workers in whose name these terrible states had been founded, when they got too uppity
Utopians who have absolutely no understanding of human nature always end up creating hell on Earth.
It’s worth remembering that you only get one chance to redistribute the money in the pockets of the 1%. After that it will never be created again to redistribute.
Sorry Jane, too many aspiring 1%ers in this crowd for that kind of talk.
A worthy and eloquent follow-on from Mary’s article. Thank you for contributing!
The welfare state delusion
Two harmful trends undermining human and societal well being: Parental estrangement/Grandparent alienation and Institutionalization of disabled and elderly people.
I do agree with most of what you say about care in Nritain. But I also feel, as do most people I talk to, that voluntary euthanasia must happen. Keeping eldrrly, sick people alive to the point where they and their loved ones suffer and nobody benefits doesn’t make sense.
No one is going to euthanize me ever and I intend to be totally objectionable,in fact most people think I already am,and no way am I going to capitulate to the Satanic Nazi worshippers. Anyway being so objectionable I don’t have any loved ones,nobody even likes me,so no problem there. I intend to be a right nasty piece of work ,in fact aged 67 I already am and no one is going to come at me with a needle and a load of patronizing cant.
What if you’re in severe, intractable pain though?
Jane – you sound lovely (the modern expression is ‘feisty’). You should be honoured as a national treasure (we have a few odd’uns in this list I would be happy to be rid of.)
What if you’re in severe, intractable pain though?
Jane – you sound lovely (the modern expression is ‘feisty’). You should be honoured as a national treasure (we have a few odd’uns in this list I would be happy to be rid of.)
I am 65 year old guy with stage 4 cancer and two genes (and a family history) that predispose me to Alzheimers. I am predictably interested in euthanasia, but my oh my that slope is slippery. Here in Canada, people working in the “Medical Assistance in Dying” (MAiD) field have been dispatching people for reasons including poor mental health, depression, allergies and poverty. Soldiers seriously wounded in battle have been encouraged to die rather than receive the expensive (and inadequate) care that is available. The government is very interested in the financial savings that might be realized if only more people could be persuaded to stop making demands on the health care system. It is unclear to me how a government that charges from ethics scandal to ethics scandal can ever be trusted to manage a system of euthanasia without turning it into death cult.
Absolutely. As a healthy 77-year old, I sometimes think that when my time comes – and if I am compos mentis – I would welcome cancer, as I could exercise my right not to be treated and thus know, more or less, my ‘exit date’. That would not be a bad thing: I was reading Dr Johnson’s sayings last night and one of his famous ones goes: ‘If a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates the mind wonderfully.’ And as a Christian, I would like that concentration of mind, to prepare myself to meet my Maker.
Absolutely. As a healthy 77-year old, I sometimes think that when my time comes – and if I am compos mentis – I would welcome cancer, as I could exercise my right not to be treated and thus know, more or less, my ‘exit date’. That would not be a bad thing: I was reading Dr Johnson’s sayings last night and one of his famous ones goes: ‘If a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates the mind wonderfully.’ And as a Christian, I would like that concentration of mind, to prepare myself to meet my Maker.
Sorry I can’t agree with you re euthanasia. That is a slippery slope for humanity, just look at abortion and how that began. What I do believe – and I’ve talked with nurses and carers about it – is that we shouldn’t keep old people (of which I am one) alive too long with medication. Let nature take its course and then help people die with dignity.
Yes indeed. Not ‘strive officiously to keep alive’ those whose bodies are naturally failing. The trouble is, medics sometimes keep on ‘treatment’ when they know it is bad medicine for fear of being sued by relatives if they don’t.
Yes indeed. Not ‘strive officiously to keep alive’ those whose bodies are naturally failing. The trouble is, medics sometimes keep on ‘treatment’ when they know it is bad medicine for fear of being sued by relatives if they don’t.
You realise you are advocating a form of murder: self-slaughter or aided by others? The optics of this don’t look good, given German history in the mid-20th century.
No one is going to euthanize me ever and I intend to be totally objectionable,in fact most people think I already am,and no way am I going to capitulate to the Satanic Nazi worshippers. Anyway being so objectionable I don’t have any loved ones,nobody even likes me,so no problem there. I intend to be a right nasty piece of work ,in fact aged 67 I already am and no one is going to come at me with a needle and a load of patronizing cant.
I am 65 year old guy with stage 4 cancer and two genes (and a family history) that predispose me to Alzheimers. I am predictably interested in euthanasia, but my oh my that slope is slippery. Here in Canada, people working in the “Medical Assistance in Dying” (MAiD) field have been dispatching people for reasons including poor mental health, depression, allergies and poverty. Soldiers seriously wounded in battle have been encouraged to die rather than receive the expensive (and inadequate) care that is available. The government is very interested in the financial savings that might be realized if only more people could be persuaded to stop making demands on the health care system. It is unclear to me how a government that charges from ethics scandal to ethics scandal can ever be trusted to manage a system of euthanasia without turning it into death cult.
Sorry I can’t agree with you re euthanasia. That is a slippery slope for humanity, just look at abortion and how that began. What I do believe – and I’ve talked with nurses and carers about it – is that we shouldn’t keep old people (of which I am one) alive too long with medication. Let nature take its course and then help people die with dignity.
You realise you are advocating a form of murder: self-slaughter or aided by others? The optics of this don’t look good, given German history in the mid-20th century.
I love the way you put this “in law, the primary duty of care for people over 18 rests with the state, above the family.”
That is the essence of the problem right there. It isn’t that the state shouldn’t be there; it’s that they can’t be the first line of defense.
Reforming this will require positive actions to strengthen and empower extended families through tax laws and other things. It also means conferring obligations on families to care for their own and disciplining those that don’t. That’s where many people start to have problems, but it’s a necessary part of any reform.
Your comment resonates with me. I my professional capacity I deal with children’s social services more than adults but also many who are crossing over from one to the other as they turn 18. The day to day is spent trying to help parents and young people find some support as they move into the next stage of their lives and move forward to independent living best as possible and so on and so forth. It is essentially all about funding. It would appear standard for EHCP’s and reports submitted to social services and CAMSH/AMSH to be deliberately negative so as to influence the level of support needed in hope that this will translate into more funding.
The Equalities Act has meant that in order to level the playing field for anyone with any kind of disability (medical, mental, whatever) and to put on the state and schools and institutions and private bodies the responsibility that the factual disadvantages of their disability are compensated for to avoid discrimination of any kind.
An example where in my opinion this leads to strange situations is in Exams Access Arrangements. In examinations about 1/3 or even more of the cohort of young people (where I am anyway) now have the right to take extra time (usually 25%), rest breaks, type where others have to handwrite Etc. This to level the playing field. I think we have reached the point where it renders the examination less valid and at times even pointless. What happens later when one of these students applies for a job as a flight controller or some other job where the employer needs quick data interpretation and executive functioning? Because we can’t discriminate against all these invisible disabilities.. I think it has gone too far and every middle class parent is now going out to get an anxiety or dyslexia or processing disorder diagnosis to advance their child’s GCSE and A-level outcomes to the point where the ‘normies’ rapidly becoming a disadvantaged minority.
To be clear; never would I want to be in the shoes of parents with seriously disabled children and never would I argue that their load isn’t heavy nor that the young person doesn’t require and deserve support. I am also not saying that those with milder conditions such as learning difficulties are not deserving of help. I am merely pointing out a strange entitlement seems to exist: the expectation that one cannot possibly be allowed to actually experience any detriment from their own afflictions.
A voice in the back of my head sometimes pops up wondering why the tax payer/gov/society should pay for the costs of your misfortune when in essence life is and has always been a game of risk. Having a child is a huge risk and you took that risk. Then there is the part where many of the problems are of the not truly objectively diagnosable spectrum afflictions which often likely are based in the parenting and family setting these children grow up in than with an actual medical need, thus again the adults own choices. A negative, socially unacceptable and dark voice which I try to ignore..
It may very well turn out that families will be thrown together again by circumstances and that they will have to operate along communal ideas where everything us shared, each has what they need and each contributes where they can. There’s nothing radical about that. But the problem could also be that people aren’t used to sharing and giving up something of themselves for others, but they may learn along the way. There is certainly strength in family structures and I can’t see people finding this anywhere else but in their family.
My father-in-law died this year after a decade suffering from Alzheimer’s disease. My mother-in-law (herself now in her early 80s) cared for him at home until the end. She never had a home help, carer, nurse or social worker visit the house. She saw their GP once or twice a year during this period when he had an accident or was in obvious pain. She also visited the hospital once a year for a specialist to check his medication. He died in his own bed surrounded by his family.
She was often begged to get help in or even to put him in a care home but she wouldn’t have it. She loved her husband and believed she had committed to caring for him in sickness and health. She is also of the generation that is uncomfortable with any strangers coming into her house.
Luckily her family lives round the corner and we’re able to help out. Her son uncomplainingly bathed his dad once a week and trimmed his beard, hair and nails. We cooked for them twice a week. My wife ran errands. And my Mother-in-law knew she could call us in an emergency – which became quite frequent towards the end (falls and the like).
It’s hard work but I find this natural way of caring for family much preferable to putting your old parents in some nursing home.
The social care system is not functioning because its underfunded. But the thing is, the money is there. It’s just in the pockets of the top 1%. If didn’t have that 1% and redistributed that money care and health could be funded properly. That is socialism.
A worthy and eloquent follow-on from Mary’s article. Thank you for contributing!
The welfare state delusion
Two harmful trends undermining human and societal well being: Parental estrangement/Grandparent alienation and Institutionalization of disabled and elderly people.
I do agree with most of what you say about care in Nritain. But I also feel, as do most people I talk to, that voluntary euthanasia must happen. Keeping eldrrly, sick people alive to the point where they and their loved ones suffer and nobody benefits doesn’t make sense.
I love the way you put this “in law, the primary duty of care for people over 18 rests with the state, above the family.”
That is the essence of the problem right there. It isn’t that the state shouldn’t be there; it’s that they can’t be the first line of defense.
Reforming this will require positive actions to strengthen and empower extended families through tax laws and other things. It also means conferring obligations on families to care for their own and disciplining those that don’t. That’s where many people start to have problems, but it’s a necessary part of any reform.
Your comment resonates with me. I my professional capacity I deal with children’s social services more than adults but also many who are crossing over from one to the other as they turn 18. The day to day is spent trying to help parents and young people find some support as they move into the next stage of their lives and move forward to independent living best as possible and so on and so forth. It is essentially all about funding. It would appear standard for EHCP’s and reports submitted to social services and CAMSH/AMSH to be deliberately negative so as to influence the level of support needed in hope that this will translate into more funding.
The Equalities Act has meant that in order to level the playing field for anyone with any kind of disability (medical, mental, whatever) and to put on the state and schools and institutions and private bodies the responsibility that the factual disadvantages of their disability are compensated for to avoid discrimination of any kind.
An example where in my opinion this leads to strange situations is in Exams Access Arrangements. In examinations about 1/3 or even more of the cohort of young people (where I am anyway) now have the right to take extra time (usually 25%), rest breaks, type where others have to handwrite Etc. This to level the playing field. I think we have reached the point where it renders the examination less valid and at times even pointless. What happens later when one of these students applies for a job as a flight controller or some other job where the employer needs quick data interpretation and executive functioning? Because we can’t discriminate against all these invisible disabilities.. I think it has gone too far and every middle class parent is now going out to get an anxiety or dyslexia or processing disorder diagnosis to advance their child’s GCSE and A-level outcomes to the point where the ‘normies’ rapidly becoming a disadvantaged minority.
To be clear; never would I want to be in the shoes of parents with seriously disabled children and never would I argue that their load isn’t heavy nor that the young person doesn’t require and deserve support. I am also not saying that those with milder conditions such as learning difficulties are not deserving of help. I am merely pointing out a strange entitlement seems to exist: the expectation that one cannot possibly be allowed to actually experience any detriment from their own afflictions.
A voice in the back of my head sometimes pops up wondering why the tax payer/gov/society should pay for the costs of your misfortune when in essence life is and has always been a game of risk. Having a child is a huge risk and you took that risk. Then there is the part where many of the problems are of the not truly objectively diagnosable spectrum afflictions which often likely are based in the parenting and family setting these children grow up in than with an actual medical need, thus again the adults own choices. A negative, socially unacceptable and dark voice which I try to ignore..
Thanks Mary, for a much needed article. Working in adult social services, I have seen directly the unsustainable nature of our society having. In law, the primary duty of care for people over 18 rests with the state, above the family. As a society, we have somehow come to demand that we and our loved ones are cared for by the state, at the lowest possible cost to ourselves. The economic costs of this are no longer sustainable. It’s been depressing to watch over the last five years the only policy issue that seems to interest politicians is: “How can one keep as much of their own money while having their care needs met by a low-paid stranger?”. There is a chronic shortage of social care staff and good social care services. This is the obvious outcome when we have chosen collectively to marketise care, pay the lowest bidder, and import our care from abroad.
There are a myriad of reasons for how we ended up in this state, some of which you touch on above. It becomes very difficult (though not impossible with willingness and creativity) to care for our families and neighbours when everyone in the family is at work, and many families can no longer afford to stay at home to care for their relatives. I believe we have also seen a “professionalisation of care”. Often people feel they don’t have the skills, strength or the knowledge to care for their family because we have made care something technocratic, rather than a fundamental aspect of human relations.
That we still have writers and academics postulating the abolition of the family and a greater socialisation of care belies their lack of experience of how terrible the social care system is functioning; it is often worse than a neglectful family. The only way we will resolve the crisis that has engulfed our hospitals is if we find a solution to those needing care following discharge; we are now, as a society, living with a chronic deficit of care. But I am pessimistic of this possibility while we insist on looking to the market and the state to find a solution to this inconvenient problem. As the working age to retirement ratio grows, the costs of care, even if paying care staff minimum wage, will not cover the costs of caring for all of us in our old age. Like most utopian systems, the bigger it gets, the closer it gets to collapse. Perhaps such a collapse will force us to return to familial and local relationships of lifelong, reciprocal love, duty and care. I hope so.
As usual Mary depresses me by identifying clearly the degree of decay and decadence which is destroying our society. But the fact that Mary is so educated, eloquent, rational, emotionally integrated and is supported by this platform with a host of readers who are appreciative, considerate, calm and engaged gives me greater hope for my children’s future.
I would say “perceptive and intelligent in spite of being educated” in this day and age.
Indeed. Best to avoid the increasingly woke university culture. Thankfully there are many online platforms available for self education, such as the Michael Sandel Harvard Justice lectures and, most relevant in this article’s context, Jordan Peterson’s ‘Maps of Meaning’ series.
Indeed. Best to avoid the increasingly woke university culture. Thankfully there are many online platforms available for self education, such as the Michael Sandel Harvard Justice lectures and, most relevant in this article’s context, Jordan Peterson’s ‘Maps of Meaning’ series.
Society is being destroyed – but individuals cannot be silenced. We have to keep speaking out on whatever platform has influence.
I would say “perceptive and intelligent in spite of being educated” in this day and age.
Society is being destroyed – but individuals cannot be silenced. We have to keep speaking out on whatever platform has influence.
As usual Mary depresses me by identifying clearly the degree of decay and decadence which is destroying our society. But the fact that Mary is so educated, eloquent, rational, emotionally integrated and is supported by this platform with a host of readers who are appreciative, considerate, calm and engaged gives me greater hope for my children’s future.
Holly Shite – Harrington cannot be stopped and thank god!
Holly Shite – Harrington cannot be stopped and thank god!
Bottomline is, the future of marriage in Western countries is bleak. And with that, the future of Western civilization itself.
There were certain key elements of marriage.
– Bringing up children properly being a key objective, and the idea that spending time on home and kids was desirable.
– Division of labour: willingness of one participant (invariably the man) to take sole responsibility for finances, allowing the wife to take care of those kids
– Acceptance of the the importance of both parents to the family unit.
Each and every one of those ideas have been broken.
Spending time on kids and home is a burden, what feminists call “unpaid work”
The importance of the father to the family unit is diluted, thanks to 50% divorce rates and how fathers are treated by family courts.
And the concept of one parent taking a hit on personal life and family time, to become a breadwinner, is going to vanish. Men capable of or willing to take this role will shrink, because of fewer well paid men, and the demonisation of traditional father roles. Interestingly, despite all the whining about men supposedly unfairly monopolising the breadwinner role historically – few well paid modern women agree to pick up the breadwinner role, or marry a man far lower on the income scale. Invariably it’s a couple where both are high earning, or no marriage at all.
So, much smaller pool of candidates, usually ending up in double income and either no kids or kids growing up with inadequate parental time, often ending in divorce anyway – that’s the future.
And ironically, given the feminist theories driving a lot of these changes, those filling up the population vacuum would be genuinely patriarchal immigrant families or children where men take no responsibility at all for their offspring.
How true this is and lets call it what it is, the removal of fathers from the family.
Go to any inner city black neighborhood here in the US and let me know how things are going with that. 70% of black kids live in households with no father. Fortunately, in the name of equality, white families are catching up. How’s that going?
Our society is already in shambles without fathers around as this increase over the past 50 years has shown. Now people are suggesting to remove the mothers as well? What more could possibly go wrong?
I’ll point out that current divorce rates are near 1961 levels, pre-dating The Pill. The bigger issue is lower overall marriage rate now. Divorce rates peaked in the early 1980s and have fallen every decade since. The notion that 50% of marriages end in divorce is false and has been for some time.
Fair enough and good point. It’s an interesting trend in both the US and UK, if I am not wrong divorce rates did spike and come back. So it’s probably just a bit higher than the 50s – 60s.
And I would agree completely with you that the primary issue is marriages not happening in the first place, but I would still maintain the divorce rate is high enough still to act as one of the deterrents to marriage.
That’s because people don’t marry. Situationships and dependent single motherhoods are much more prevalent, as they should be given current divorce law.
Why would people bother to marry these days when they can have commitment-free sex outside it? We need to educate young people to understand that true love requires a permanent public commitment – marriage – for them to be truly content and not to struggle with a long history of broken relationships.
Why would people bother to marry these days when they can have commitment-free sex outside it? We need to educate young people to understand that true love requires a permanent public commitment – marriage – for them to be truly content and not to struggle with a long history of broken relationships.
Fair enough and good point. It’s an interesting trend in both the US and UK, if I am not wrong divorce rates did spike and come back. So it’s probably just a bit higher than the 50s – 60s.
And I would agree completely with you that the primary issue is marriages not happening in the first place, but I would still maintain the divorce rate is high enough still to act as one of the deterrents to marriage.
That’s because people don’t marry. Situationships and dependent single motherhoods are much more prevalent, as they should be given current divorce law.
yes. And the author quotes a Marxist saying, “the diffusion of the childbearing and childrearing role to the society as a whole, men as well as women”.
Childbearing to men? Sounds interesting. Completely against nature and the biology of the human body, but only leftists can get away with saying such profound drivel and not be cancelled.
Apparently some women have a p#nis and some men have a uterus, so sounds entirely possible to me….
Apparently some women have a p#nis and some men have a uterus, so sounds entirely possible to me….
I think you make a good point but you only emphasise the narrow nuclear family, which only became the norm since the 1950s in the US, especially with the growth of sprawling suburbs. Because of its isolation it could only provide a limited amount of support and could indeed be stifling for women expected to be at home full time and cut off from much contact a lot of the time. I don’t think we are going to go back to that any time soon.
Yoram Hazony in his book “Conservatism – A Rediscovery” instead emphasises the importance of the much richer extended family in all stable traditional societies. This is able to command greater resources, knowledge and wisdom between its members of several generations. (He also strongly advocates the need for some form of shared public religion, which one depending on the context and history of the society in question. He himself is an Orthodox Jew). I feel anyway he makes a convincing intellectual case. Whether his prescriptions are any longer even possible or not in wider society I don’t know. However Hazony also emphasises the need for self styled ‘conservatives’ to actually make a full commitment to living this way and not just writing about it and telling other people to, which rather too often seems to be the case!
In any case as a gay man I’m not sure I’m personally able to make any such commitment and I do fear that most people like their freedoms too much, however damaging to wider society in the longer run. I fear that liberalism and the idea that the only important thing is individual freedom and choice is indeed going to further erode the important but rarely acknowledged roots of a stable society
“I fear that liberalism and the idea that the only important thing is individual freedom and choice is indeed going to further erode the important but rarely acknowledged roots of a stable society”
I hope for the best but I also think there’s no going back. As far as I know no one has. Individual freedom in its contemporary form is going to create something new, but also something that will dominate the way things work in a way that is chaotic and not really a functioning society in a way we’re used to.
This idea that the “nuclear ” family is a myth is itself a myth.A lot of academic research over the last 50 years into old records,not just church parish records,but taxes of all sorts shows that way back in the 14th century (maybe earlier even) in England,the much romanticized mixed age extended household was rare,and only in cases of dire poverty. It was more common in Europe. But in England the “nuclear” family was the preferred form very early on. A lot of Wills show this as it’s obvious from the wording that elderly parents lived in a separate household to the adult children they were bequeathing stuff to,who all had seperate homes. We like to romanticize ideas of children,the family,and poverty ,the latter can be very picturesque,a very insidious danger. Or I could use the word “sentimentalist” and the psychologist Dorothy Rowe says in one of her books that what we sentimentalist we feel no compunction in killing,which is a scary but true thought.
Yes, the ‘Age of Narcissism’ is upon us, the ‘poster children’ of which are Harry & Meghan Markle, the Kardashians, the Hilton sisters, Hollywood-at-large….
And yes, Republicans are correct is encouraging family formation, community participation and developing a commitment to a greater cause in religion. Years ago, when I voted Democrat I used to think Republicans were ‘old-fashioned, antediluvian, etc. but now I think they have the answer to living a good and satisfying human life.
I agree with Jewish Orthodoxy that extended families – uncles, aunts, grandparents, cousins and so on – are much healthier and more supportive than the model of the ‘nuclear family’. This latter model puts too much pressure on the individual couple to make their marriage work. The Jews had the wisdom to see that this places to great an emotional burden on the couple. Those of all religions who share this vision of family life need to work together to make it a reality – Christians and Jews and so on. I hesitate to include Muslims as they allow polygamy.
“I fear that liberalism and the idea that the only important thing is individual freedom and choice is indeed going to further erode the important but rarely acknowledged roots of a stable society”
I hope for the best but I also think there’s no going back. As far as I know no one has. Individual freedom in its contemporary form is going to create something new, but also something that will dominate the way things work in a way that is chaotic and not really a functioning society in a way we’re used to.
This idea that the “nuclear ” family is a myth is itself a myth.A lot of academic research over the last 50 years into old records,not just church parish records,but taxes of all sorts shows that way back in the 14th century (maybe earlier even) in England,the much romanticized mixed age extended household was rare,and only in cases of dire poverty. It was more common in Europe. But in England the “nuclear” family was the preferred form very early on. A lot of Wills show this as it’s obvious from the wording that elderly parents lived in a separate household to the adult children they were bequeathing stuff to,who all had seperate homes. We like to romanticize ideas of children,the family,and poverty ,the latter can be very picturesque,a very insidious danger. Or I could use the word “sentimentalist” and the psychologist Dorothy Rowe says in one of her books that what we sentimentalist we feel no compunction in killing,which is a scary but true thought.
Yes, the ‘Age of Narcissism’ is upon us, the ‘poster children’ of which are Harry & Meghan Markle, the Kardashians, the Hilton sisters, Hollywood-at-large….
And yes, Republicans are correct is encouraging family formation, community participation and developing a commitment to a greater cause in religion. Years ago, when I voted Democrat I used to think Republicans were ‘old-fashioned, antediluvian, etc. but now I think they have the answer to living a good and satisfying human life.
I agree with Jewish Orthodoxy that extended families – uncles, aunts, grandparents, cousins and so on – are much healthier and more supportive than the model of the ‘nuclear family’. This latter model puts too much pressure on the individual couple to make their marriage work. The Jews had the wisdom to see that this places to great an emotional burden on the couple. Those of all religions who share this vision of family life need to work together to make it a reality – Christians and Jews and so on. I hesitate to include Muslims as they allow polygamy.
Maybe things would improve if men stuck around when they fathered kids, thereby preventing aimless, delinquent young men who eschew the free education they are offered.
Maybe if men picked up more of the domestic chores and caring duties for their kids, parents and grandparents while their, female partners, by necessity, do some more stimulating paid work, there would be less divorce.
The future of Western civilisation is indeed bleak. But it is not yet quite dead. The Christian churches need to speak out strongly on the subject of marriage between a man and a woman, open to new life and until death do them part. They need to emphasise that this is God’s loving wisdom for the stable and enduring continuation of the human race. The Churches – including my own, the Catholic Church – have been too silent on this subject for too long. They must bear some responsibility for the current state of affairs.
How true this is and lets call it what it is, the removal of fathers from the family.
Go to any inner city black neighborhood here in the US and let me know how things are going with that. 70% of black kids live in households with no father. Fortunately, in the name of equality, white families are catching up. How’s that going?
Our society is already in shambles without fathers around as this increase over the past 50 years has shown. Now people are suggesting to remove the mothers as well? What more could possibly go wrong?
I’ll point out that current divorce rates are near 1961 levels, pre-dating The Pill. The bigger issue is lower overall marriage rate now. Divorce rates peaked in the early 1980s and have fallen every decade since. The notion that 50% of marriages end in divorce is false and has been for some time.
yes. And the author quotes a Marxist saying, “the diffusion of the childbearing and childrearing role to the society as a whole, men as well as women”.
Childbearing to men? Sounds interesting. Completely against nature and the biology of the human body, but only leftists can get away with saying such profound drivel and not be cancelled.
I think you make a good point but you only emphasise the narrow nuclear family, which only became the norm since the 1950s in the US, especially with the growth of sprawling suburbs. Because of its isolation it could only provide a limited amount of support and could indeed be stifling for women expected to be at home full time and cut off from much contact a lot of the time. I don’t think we are going to go back to that any time soon.
Yoram Hazony in his book “Conservatism – A Rediscovery” instead emphasises the importance of the much richer extended family in all stable traditional societies. This is able to command greater resources, knowledge and wisdom between its members of several generations. (He also strongly advocates the need for some form of shared public religion, which one depending on the context and history of the society in question. He himself is an Orthodox Jew). I feel anyway he makes a convincing intellectual case. Whether his prescriptions are any longer even possible or not in wider society I don’t know. However Hazony also emphasises the need for self styled ‘conservatives’ to actually make a full commitment to living this way and not just writing about it and telling other people to, which rather too often seems to be the case!
In any case as a gay man I’m not sure I’m personally able to make any such commitment and I do fear that most people like their freedoms too much, however damaging to wider society in the longer run. I fear that liberalism and the idea that the only important thing is individual freedom and choice is indeed going to further erode the important but rarely acknowledged roots of a stable society
Maybe things would improve if men stuck around when they fathered kids, thereby preventing aimless, delinquent young men who eschew the free education they are offered.
Maybe if men picked up more of the domestic chores and caring duties for their kids, parents and grandparents while their, female partners, by necessity, do some more stimulating paid work, there would be less divorce.
The future of Western civilisation is indeed bleak. But it is not yet quite dead. The Christian churches need to speak out strongly on the subject of marriage between a man and a woman, open to new life and until death do them part. They need to emphasise that this is God’s loving wisdom for the stable and enduring continuation of the human race. The Churches – including my own, the Catholic Church – have been too silent on this subject for too long. They must bear some responsibility for the current state of affairs.
Bottomline is, the future of marriage in Western countries is bleak. And with that, the future of Western civilization itself.
There were certain key elements of marriage.
– Bringing up children properly being a key objective, and the idea that spending time on home and kids was desirable.
– Division of labour: willingness of one participant (invariably the man) to take sole responsibility for finances, allowing the wife to take care of those kids
– Acceptance of the the importance of both parents to the family unit.
Each and every one of those ideas have been broken.
Spending time on kids and home is a burden, what feminists call “unpaid work”
The importance of the father to the family unit is diluted, thanks to 50% divorce rates and how fathers are treated by family courts.
And the concept of one parent taking a hit on personal life and family time, to become a breadwinner, is going to vanish. Men capable of or willing to take this role will shrink, because of fewer well paid men, and the demonisation of traditional father roles. Interestingly, despite all the whining about men supposedly unfairly monopolising the breadwinner role historically – few well paid modern women agree to pick up the breadwinner role, or marry a man far lower on the income scale. Invariably it’s a couple where both are high earning, or no marriage at all.
So, much smaller pool of candidates, usually ending up in double income and either no kids or kids growing up with inadequate parental time, often ending in divorce anyway – that’s the future.
And ironically, given the feminist theories driving a lot of these changes, those filling up the population vacuum would be genuinely patriarchal immigrant families or children where men take no responsibility at all for their offspring.
It is precisely because of the devaluing of the family – and real bonds of love and commitment – that we are in the mess that we are in. For millennia, we had to live in families in order to survive – this is why secure attachment is so necessary for children. Human beings don’t do very well entirely on their own.
All the latest research (Harvard Center on the Developing Child) points to the importance of a baby building a meaningful and consistent bond with responsive, responsible and loving adult or adults (usually the parents, but just one such adult makes a huge difference). Being “raised” by a variety of teenagers with a Level One childcare qualification because they couldn’t or wouldn’t do anything else is not a suitable alternative in any way.
Funnily enough, the state, “society” or whatever you want to call it, is not very good at looking after people, precisely because those bonds of love and duty are not there. We wouldn’t have the elderly waiting in agony for hours for an ambulance if the state really cared. Sometimes the social worker is sick, so the visit gets cancelled – this doesn’t generally happen in families. Making everyone responsible means that nobody is responsible. And yet, increasingly we seem to want to abdicate personal “privatised” care to the anonymous and heartless powers-that-be. “Social care”, “child care”… all of this used to be part and parcel of family life. Now we have an epidemic of loneliness, children with acute emotional distress (conveniently diagnosed and labelled as “mental illness)… and we think this is progress?
Communism hates the traditional family, precisely because it can be self-sustaining, does not need any input from the state and is more resilient to interference – it breeds freedom and is therefore dangerous.
Exactly. The family provides a viable alternative in which the State plays no role.
You’re using outdated ideas to try and answer present and future issues. Families are not magically happy and people were never automatically tied emotionally to them. What has changed somewhat is that people are no longer physically tied either, although abandonment was always possible and did happen. Women were much more vulnerable and had few options but to marry, have kids and stay that way. Is society at fault for changing that lack of choice? Socialism doesn’t hate family but it does offer an exit clause. It’s not responsible for the need for one. Marriages that work now are where both partners work at keeping it together. If society deserves families then men are going to have to put in a lot more effort than they used to.
“people were never automatically tied emotionally to them (families).”
So what was holding them together?
Religious pressure. Lack of sex outside marriage. Women having no way of earning a living, such that they could literally starve to death. Women sometimes/often endured horrendous conditions because there was no alternative. Rich women might enter a nunnery but that wasn’t available to all or even particularly enticing.
“Socialism doesn’t hate family but it does offer an exit clause.”
Socialism never created those conditions, Capitalism did. Feminism grew out of those opportunities. It’s difficult to be sure just what Feminism did for women, but choices became available: they could chose to have children or not. The Pill contributed to that, another Capitalist contribution. It’s difficult to know exactly what you’re unhappy with, but it seems to be the attitude of men. The answer, then, would be for women to chose carefully and themselves be responsible for the consequences: if you can’t find the right partner and you want children then you’ll miss out. Maybe that might reduce the number of families in a community. Less families, more single, unattached people than families, would that be a good thing? Families probably have a positive effect on community stability. What happens if they’re the minority? Many men might have poor attitudes about responsibilities, but without marriage things may be no better, with nothing to bring men and women together. Men have definitely improved over the years in their contribution to families. Maybe it will continue, but not if they’re treated as pariahs. They too can chose not to take part.
Err, the article is blaming feminists and socialists for the decline in family. Yes, capitalism is very much part of it but socialism is a safety net that allows women exist outside marriage and to have children but not risk absolute poverty. For many women that’s not enough. “The answer, then, would be for women to chose carefully and themselves be responsible for the consequences”, which is exactly what is happening and yet people like you and Mary whine about it. So does society want to change things? I think it needs to. That means accepting that women need and deserve a lot of tangible encouragement to have kids. Since men can’t/won’t be forced to provide it then there needs to be another way.
Err, the article is blaming feminists and socialists for the decline in family. Yes, capitalism is very much part of it but socialism is a safety net that allows women exist outside marriage and to have children but not risk absolute poverty. For many women that’s not enough. “The answer, then, would be for women to chose carefully and themselves be responsible for the consequences”, which is exactly what is happening and yet people like you and Mary whine about it. So does society want to change things? I think it needs to. That means accepting that women need and deserve a lot of tangible encouragement to have kids. Since men can’t/won’t be forced to provide it then there needs to be another way.
Until the Industrial Revolution which the Luddites were absolutely right in opposing,many women could work as “spinsters ie spinning wool which was not some quaint niche cottage industry but in the medieval days the source of great wealth for England but of course not for everyone,as usual. But a lot more women who were not married back in history had a lot more independence and ability to earn than our current patronizing age recognizes. Widows had the best deal of course,they could buy and sell on their own account,and vote too and they often took over their late husband’s business so they had an advantage their over their spinster sisters. Being a governess or having to become a “sex worker” wasn’t so great for those single women who couldn’t find other work as later centuries destroyed the family unit as the primary production unit,so they had plenty of “sex outside marriage” but I doubt they found it very pleasant or contributory to their satisfaction with life.
“Socialism doesn’t hate family but it does offer an exit clause.”
Socialism never created those conditions, Capitalism did. Feminism grew out of those opportunities. It’s difficult to be sure just what Feminism did for women, but choices became available: they could chose to have children or not. The Pill contributed to that, another Capitalist contribution. It’s difficult to know exactly what you’re unhappy with, but it seems to be the attitude of men. The answer, then, would be for women to chose carefully and themselves be responsible for the consequences: if you can’t find the right partner and you want children then you’ll miss out. Maybe that might reduce the number of families in a community. Less families, more single, unattached people than families, would that be a good thing? Families probably have a positive effect on community stability. What happens if they’re the minority? Many men might have poor attitudes about responsibilities, but without marriage things may be no better, with nothing to bring men and women together. Men have definitely improved over the years in their contribution to families. Maybe it will continue, but not if they’re treated as pariahs. They too can chose not to take part.
Until the Industrial Revolution which the Luddites were absolutely right in opposing,many women could work as “spinsters ie spinning wool which was not some quaint niche cottage industry but in the medieval days the source of great wealth for England but of course not for everyone,as usual. But a lot more women who were not married back in history had a lot more independence and ability to earn than our current patronizing age recognizes. Widows had the best deal of course,they could buy and sell on their own account,and vote too and they often took over their late husband’s business so they had an advantage their over their spinster sisters. Being a governess or having to become a “sex worker” wasn’t so great for those single women who couldn’t find other work as later centuries destroyed the family unit as the primary production unit,so they had plenty of “sex outside marriage” but I doubt they found it very pleasant or contributory to their satisfaction with life.
Religious pressure. Lack of sex outside marriage. Women having no way of earning a living, such that they could literally starve to death. Women sometimes/often endured horrendous conditions because there was no alternative. Rich women might enter a nunnery but that wasn’t available to all or even particularly enticing.
It’s not about being happy. Life is not about being happy. Believing in God (of whatever form,dont start chuntering about dinosaurs,baby Jesus and spaghetti whatever) is not about being happy. Nothing about life,sex,existence is about being happy. It just is. Stop watching Hollywood movies written by nine year olds.
Life isn’t ‘about’ anything other than what the individual wants it to be. You can work towards being happy, whether or not you succeed. Free will and all that. Smart people take advice on life but one person’s truth isn’t necessarily universal.
Life isn’t ‘about’ anything other than what the individual wants it to be. You can work towards being happy, whether or not you succeed. Free will and all that. Smart people take advice on life but one person’s truth isn’t necessarily universal.
“people were never automatically tied emotionally to them (families).”
So what was holding them together?
It’s not about being happy. Life is not about being happy. Believing in God (of whatever form,dont start chuntering about dinosaurs,baby Jesus and spaghetti whatever) is not about being happy. Nothing about life,sex,existence is about being happy. It just is. Stop watching Hollywood movies written by nine year olds.
Lucy,you have said exactly what I’ve said,or tried to say,but much better
Exactly. The family provides a viable alternative in which the State plays no role.
You’re using outdated ideas to try and answer present and future issues. Families are not magically happy and people were never automatically tied emotionally to them. What has changed somewhat is that people are no longer physically tied either, although abandonment was always possible and did happen. Women were much more vulnerable and had few options but to marry, have kids and stay that way. Is society at fault for changing that lack of choice? Socialism doesn’t hate family but it does offer an exit clause. It’s not responsible for the need for one. Marriages that work now are where both partners work at keeping it together. If society deserves families then men are going to have to put in a lot more effort than they used to.
Lucy,you have said exactly what I’ve said,or tried to say,but much better
It is precisely because of the devaluing of the family – and real bonds of love and commitment – that we are in the mess that we are in. For millennia, we had to live in families in order to survive – this is why secure attachment is so necessary for children. Human beings don’t do very well entirely on their own.
All the latest research (Harvard Center on the Developing Child) points to the importance of a baby building a meaningful and consistent bond with responsive, responsible and loving adult or adults (usually the parents, but just one such adult makes a huge difference). Being “raised” by a variety of teenagers with a Level One childcare qualification because they couldn’t or wouldn’t do anything else is not a suitable alternative in any way.
Funnily enough, the state, “society” or whatever you want to call it, is not very good at looking after people, precisely because those bonds of love and duty are not there. We wouldn’t have the elderly waiting in agony for hours for an ambulance if the state really cared. Sometimes the social worker is sick, so the visit gets cancelled – this doesn’t generally happen in families. Making everyone responsible means that nobody is responsible. And yet, increasingly we seem to want to abdicate personal “privatised” care to the anonymous and heartless powers-that-be. “Social care”, “child care”… all of this used to be part and parcel of family life. Now we have an epidemic of loneliness, children with acute emotional distress (conveniently diagnosed and labelled as “mental illness)… and we think this is progress?
Communism hates the traditional family, precisely because it can be self-sustaining, does not need any input from the state and is more resilient to interference – it breeds freedom and is therefore dangerous.
Marx’s impact on the entire world has been lethal and enduring. He may have precipitated more human deaths than any single individual in history by virtue of his hateful philosophy.
His egregious attack on the nuclear family has been promulgated and developed by ruthless feminists. Much of the ills in the West today may be ascribed to this assault on the bedrock of societies for thousands of years. Destroy the nuclear family and the way is opened for total revolution and the obliteration of the established order.
But if it hadn’t been Marx it would have been somebody else. He was only extrapolating Rousseau past the industrial revolution. It’s really a form of romanticism, a desire to revert to the communal life of tribes. Sadly, this organization only works in human nature when everyone knows and is known to everybody else, and generally highly related.
Indeed. At which point they are ready to start slaughtering the tribe next door.
Let us not forget that ‘somebody else’ was Plato – circa 400BC. Followed by a long list of others before we got to Rousseau.
The trouble with Marx is he fundamentally misunderstood economics; fundamentally misunderstood humans; was incapable of working for a living; incapable of looking after his wife and children; and being a mendicant (Engels) wanted everybody else to be the same.
Remember Thatcher’s comment about socialism (read communism) “eventually you run out of other peoples’ money”.
Indeed. At which point they are ready to start slaughtering the tribe next door.
Let us not forget that ‘somebody else’ was Plato – circa 400BC. Followed by a long list of others before we got to Rousseau.
The trouble with Marx is he fundamentally misunderstood economics; fundamentally misunderstood humans; was incapable of working for a living; incapable of looking after his wife and children; and being a mendicant (Engels) wanted everybody else to be the same.
Remember Thatcher’s comment about socialism (read communism) “eventually you run out of other peoples’ money”.
The problem with Marxism isn’t his incredibly damaging ideology. It is the willingness of so many groups of people to embrace the ideology and pretend to be “victims”
That’s quite a neat trick isn’t it?
I am not religious, but the existence of Marxism and the ease with which people follow it’s principles makes me think the Devil does exist.
The COVID time calls to distrust other people,keep away from other people especially your most vulnerable relatives,to voluntarily close social isolation and to offer no sort of human caring contact and to reject hugs from others makes me know with a bit of shock that not only does Satan exist (not necessarily in an embodied humanoid form) but he is behind all this. He is the boss of Klaus Schwab. I got my comment taken off YouTube for saying that! It’s those Powers and Principalities that St Paul mentioned,dark forces in the air.
The COVID time calls to distrust other people,keep away from other people especially your most vulnerable relatives,to voluntarily close social isolation and to offer no sort of human caring contact and to reject hugs from others makes me know with a bit of shock that not only does Satan exist (not necessarily in an embodied humanoid form) but he is behind all this. He is the boss of Klaus Schwab. I got my comment taken off YouTube for saying that! It’s those Powers and Principalities that St Paul mentioned,dark forces in the air.
I am not religious, but the existence of Marxism and the ease with which people follow it’s principles makes me think the Devil does exist.
That’s quite a neat trick isn’t it?
But if it hadn’t been Marx it would have been somebody else. He was only extrapolating Rousseau past the industrial revolution. It’s really a form of romanticism, a desire to revert to the communal life of tribes. Sadly, this organization only works in human nature when everyone knows and is known to everybody else, and generally highly related.
The problem with Marxism isn’t his incredibly damaging ideology. It is the willingness of so many groups of people to embrace the ideology and pretend to be “victims”
Marx’s impact on the entire world has been lethal and enduring. He may have precipitated more human deaths than any single individual in history by virtue of his hateful philosophy.
His egregious attack on the nuclear family has been promulgated and developed by ruthless feminists. Much of the ills in the West today may be ascribed to this assault on the bedrock of societies for thousands of years. Destroy the nuclear family and the way is opened for total revolution and the obliteration of the established order.
Thank you for such an intelligent, informative and thought provoking essay. James Sharpe’s comment further exemplified why I value Unherd.
Thank you for such an intelligent, informative and thought provoking essay. James Sharpe’s comment further exemplified why I value Unherd.
“But the reality is that wanting both care and liberation is a bit like wanting somewhere to be both a nature reserve and a golf course.” – a razor sharp sentence. The social idealists’s lofty pronouncements seem to so often cover up their own darker misanthropy, that doesn’t bear much sceptical consideration.
“The social idealists’s lofty pronouncements seem to so often cover up their own darker misanthropy”
Indeed. Socialism is evil masquerading as compassion.
No, it’s a silly sentence. Men have enjoyed both care and liberation for a lot of the time there has been such a thing as family. What’s not working is that women want some or all of the same freedom. Two self centred people in the same group is hard to reconcile.
I don’t want “that freedom”. I’ve got the freedom I need. Maybe you didn’t mean by “the same freedom as men” ,drinking and whoring. I dont want to work down a mine. I don’t want to fight fires. I don’t want to man the dustcart. I don’t want to drive heavy machinery. I did want to buy a house to live in but because I was a girlie on my own society,feminism not withstanding said no. Most of what we are told is the “right way” to think is a load of rubbish.
Umm, you have a very warped view of what most men do in the 21st century. There is no rule that they have to drink to excess, go ‘whoring’ or even work down a mine. How old are you? Those women who do do those things do so because they want to, not because they’ve been told to. There are plenty of refined male preserves where some women do want to be but are hampered by biology and society’s prehistoric attitude to it. There is huge resentment about their differences and women suffer because of that. So women are having to choose and increasingly they choose not to have many or any children. That is a problem for society. Does society want to solve it or just moan about modern women?
Umm, you have a very warped view of what most men do in the 21st century. There is no rule that they have to drink to excess, go ‘whoring’ or even work down a mine. How old are you? Those women who do do those things do so because they want to, not because they’ve been told to. There are plenty of refined male preserves where some women do want to be but are hampered by biology and society’s prehistoric attitude to it. There is huge resentment about their differences and women suffer because of that. So women are having to choose and increasingly they choose not to have many or any children. That is a problem for society. Does society want to solve it or just moan about modern women?
I don’t want “that freedom”. I’ve got the freedom I need. Maybe you didn’t mean by “the same freedom as men” ,drinking and whoring. I dont want to work down a mine. I don’t want to fight fires. I don’t want to man the dustcart. I don’t want to drive heavy machinery. I did want to buy a house to live in but because I was a girlie on my own society,feminism not withstanding said no. Most of what we are told is the “right way” to think is a load of rubbish.
“The social idealists’s lofty pronouncements seem to so often cover up their own darker misanthropy”
Indeed. Socialism is evil masquerading as compassion.
No, it’s a silly sentence. Men have enjoyed both care and liberation for a lot of the time there has been such a thing as family. What’s not working is that women want some or all of the same freedom. Two self centred people in the same group is hard to reconcile.
“But the reality is that wanting both care and liberation is a bit like wanting somewhere to be both a nature reserve and a golf course.” – a razor sharp sentence. The social idealists’s lofty pronouncements seem to so often cover up their own darker misanthropy, that doesn’t bear much sceptical consideration.
Thank you, Mary, for this eloquent and uplifting essay on a matter close to my heart. I suspect that Sophie Lewis has not yet become a mother and that should that ever happen, she might feel a twinge of shame over her juvenile expostulations.
Indeed she does not. In fact she has a genetic condition which means that she cannot have children. I think that explains the most (sadly) about why she has written such ideas (and advocates for cyborg wombs).
Indeed she does not. In fact she has a genetic condition which means that she cannot have children. I think that explains the most (sadly) about why she has written such ideas (and advocates for cyborg wombs).
Thank you, Mary, for this eloquent and uplifting essay on a matter close to my heart. I suspect that Sophie Lewis has not yet become a mother and that should that ever happen, she might feel a twinge of shame over her juvenile expostulations.
I don’t have a family so imagine myself writing, or at least thinking, a note along the lines of those of Laura Marx, which I thought is more a comment on the ravages of age than the feeling of being a burden. Perhaps it’s just that I’m still looking at it from some distance, but the knowledge that, when age has stripped life of most of it’s joy, I’ll be able to end it without worrying about hurting loved ones, so avoiding a lot of suffering in old age, brings me a lot of comfort.
Sorry to hear that.
I don’t see any reason to disagree with you.
I’m not sure why you assume that agedness will strip the joy out of life. My Grandma retained a vibrant, joyful spirit even as her bodily existence became quite grim–not that she was the norm. When you say you have no family, are you also without connections, totally alone in this world so to speak? If not, I hope you’ll consider whether an early exit might not in fact hurt some other people. If so, I hope that changes for you.
Hopefully as you age you’ll gain the wisdom that allows you to see how fruitful and rewarding the experience of getting older can be, especially in providing counsel to the younger people you care for, whether part of your family or not.
“Isn’t it pretty to think so?”
The trick is, to find them at a receptive moment. Such moments can be few and far between!
Can for many, but clearly isn’t for many more. I was talking to my brother awhile back about loss of friends as we aged (not due to death). He – an extremely gregarious man – opined that “friendship is overrated.” I took this as his way of dealing with the relative poverty in friendships he has come to feel. He has many children and grandchildren now and, though independent, they are his world. These people who advocate destruction of families are already so impoverished the give nothing up themselves, but wish to begrudge others.
I suspect Stewart that you are one of those unfortunates “whom only a mother could love “ as the adage goes.
“Isn’t it pretty to think so?”
The trick is, to find them at a receptive moment. Such moments can be few and far between!
Can for many, but clearly isn’t for many more. I was talking to my brother awhile back about loss of friends as we aged (not due to death). He – an extremely gregarious man – opined that “friendship is overrated.” I took this as his way of dealing with the relative poverty in friendships he has come to feel. He has many children and grandchildren now and, though independent, they are his world. These people who advocate destruction of families are already so impoverished the give nothing up themselves, but wish to begrudge others.
I suspect Stewart that you are one of those unfortunates “whom only a mother could love “ as the adage goes.
Laura Marx’s note reminded me of a comment to another essay wherein someone’s mother had said, “old age isn’t for sissies.”
Agedness is only unfulfilling when you have no children and grandchildren to experience life and joy.
Love to hear a bit more about your understanding of this. For instance: unfulfilling in what way?
Aw,no. I’ve got nephews and nieces and now great etc… but that’s not all that can be a source of joy in your life,that’s a narrow way to see the value of life. One of the greatest joys in life is being able to piss off the society around you,young and old,male and female,ethnic all kinds by being content and happy despite not fitting any of their paradigms for ok-ness.
Love to hear a bit more about your understanding of this. For instance: unfulfilling in what way?
Aw,no. I’ve got nephews and nieces and now great etc… but that’s not all that can be a source of joy in your life,that’s a narrow way to see the value of life. One of the greatest joys in life is being able to piss off the society around you,young and old,male and female,ethnic all kinds by being content and happy despite not fitting any of their paradigms for ok-ness.
Maybe you won’t have any loved ones ha ha. Maybe they won’t care.
Sorry to hear that.
I don’t see any reason to disagree with you.
I’m not sure why you assume that agedness will strip the joy out of life. My Grandma retained a vibrant, joyful spirit even as her bodily existence became quite grim–not that she was the norm. When you say you have no family, are you also without connections, totally alone in this world so to speak? If not, I hope you’ll consider whether an early exit might not in fact hurt some other people. If so, I hope that changes for you.
Hopefully as you age you’ll gain the wisdom that allows you to see how fruitful and rewarding the experience of getting older can be, especially in providing counsel to the younger people you care for, whether part of your family or not.
Laura Marx’s note reminded me of a comment to another essay wherein someone’s mother had said, “old age isn’t for sissies.”
Agedness is only unfulfilling when you have no children and grandchildren to experience life and joy.
Maybe you won’t have any loved ones ha ha. Maybe they won’t care.
I don’t have a family so imagine myself writing, or at least thinking, a note along the lines of those of Laura Marx, which I thought is more a comment on the ravages of age than the feeling of being a burden. Perhaps it’s just that I’m still looking at it from some distance, but the knowledge that, when age has stripped life of most of it’s joy, I’ll be able to end it without worrying about hurting loved ones, so avoiding a lot of suffering in old age, brings me a lot of comfort.
I gave up 1/3 the way in, just not in the mood for all that right now, this time of year – and also because that paragraph where it all become so clear that I could point right to the problem, so did not need to read further:
”anti-family theorist Sophie Lewis: that the revolution must come for everyone. The family, she says, “is to be abolished even when it is aspired to, mythologised, valued, and embodied by people who are neither white nor heterosexual, neither bourgeois nor colonisers”. For it’s only in “collectively letting go of this technology of privatisation, the family, that our species will truly prosper”.”
See – what you have there is raw evil – that is Satan using her as a sock puppet….that is the problem with anti-Family, it is evil. Also Mary calls it Neo-Liberal, it is really postmodernism – Neo-Marxism, a philosophy only C.S. Lewis’s Screwtape could push, and thus any arguing for it are just speaking his words from their mouth…. pawns.
And Mary – I did read these lines and felt sad..
”I’ve written plenty about the transformative nature of motherhood, the value of interdependence and care,”’
that you two did not also have the love of a good man as well.
I gave up 1/3 the way in, just not in the mood for all that right now, this time of year – and also because that paragraph where it all become so clear that I could point right to the problem, so did not need to read further:
”anti-family theorist Sophie Lewis: that the revolution must come for everyone. The family, she says, “is to be abolished even when it is aspired to, mythologised, valued, and embodied by people who are neither white nor heterosexual, neither bourgeois nor colonisers”. For it’s only in “collectively letting go of this technology of privatisation, the family, that our species will truly prosper”.”
See – what you have there is raw evil – that is Satan using her as a sock puppet….that is the problem with anti-Family, it is evil. Also Mary calls it Neo-Liberal, it is really postmodernism – Neo-Marxism, a philosophy only C.S. Lewis’s Screwtape could push, and thus any arguing for it are just speaking his words from their mouth…. pawns.
And Mary – I did read these lines and felt sad..
”I’ve written plenty about the transformative nature of motherhood, the value of interdependence and care,”’
that you two did not also have the love of a good man as well.
Well, they’ve done a pretty good job. I came of age during the 1970s feminist movement. Although reared among the mountain families of rural American Appalachia, in trying to lift myself out of that culture I got myself all educated-up – acquiescing to, even embracing, much of Toxic Feminism. I even managed to find myself a feminist wife. Quite an experience, let me tell you – my marital home was very different from that of MY childhood. She primarily viewed me as a pack-mule whose life should be dedicated to doing MY duty – providing for the family and seeing to it that all her needs and wants were met, while hers was – what? Mostly supervising the three hired women who raised our two sons, reading books and taking notes on them, the most important of which was, “How to Manage Your Anger at Your Husband.” I wish I were kidding.
I should have said that was my ex-wife. You can even ride a good horse to death, as my father used to say, and I finally could tolerate no more and filed for divorce. Then I learned why 80%+ of American divorces are filed by the woman. My reward for decades of brutal work was that I got to keep half of my assets and see my children half of the time. Hers for 26 years of idleness? The other half of my assets, the family home, and a lifetime pension. Thus are the wages of the plow-horse who is too busy in his furrow to take off his blinders and see the landscape.
Fast forward. Men are a lot smarter now. “Man-o-sphere” Websites dot the Internet. “Red Pill” thinking predominates, men know the legal risks of wife-ing up a Western woman – who has a 50% likelihood of divorcing him – with all the above consequences – and they are not marrying – at least not Western women. The Western nuclear family is in shambles.
Congratulations, Mssrs. Marx and Engels – your work is nearly complete.
Back in the 1980s my brother and my cousin both married a young woman who(different ones,not the same one,lol) had taken on board the feminist ideas of ,I’m not a household drudges,I’m better than that. Only morons enjoy cooking. (Funny how once women had bought the idea that cooking was dull,the men took it up and got to be tv stars,lol)
Anyway the result was that both my brother and my cousin spent a few years getting the kids breakfasts and often taking them to school,doing a tough days work,coming home,doing housework,cooking the evening meal,putting the kids to bed while the liberated,emancipated wife lay on the sofa watching tv.
And I had a very non feminist male relative who systematically beat his wife and raped his daughter. Does that define men? No. You can’t judge a group based on its worst individuals.
And I had a very non feminist male relative who systematically beat his wife and raped his daughter. Does that define men? No. You can’t judge a group based on its worst individuals.
Wow, seems like you should have put your foot down earlier than you did. Sounds like an abusive relationship. Women can be manipulative and even harmful- as a woman, I know; I have learned over the years to pick my female friends wisely as many can be destructive. Bereft of charity and often self-involved and not community oriented, Feminists and Progressives are the absolute worst – very opinionated and they are more than happy to tell you how to live your life. Here’s wishing you a more peaceful life!
Back in the 1980s my brother and my cousin both married a young woman who(different ones,not the same one,lol) had taken on board the feminist ideas of ,I’m not a household drudges,I’m better than that. Only morons enjoy cooking. (Funny how once women had bought the idea that cooking was dull,the men took it up and got to be tv stars,lol)
Anyway the result was that both my brother and my cousin spent a few years getting the kids breakfasts and often taking them to school,doing a tough days work,coming home,doing housework,cooking the evening meal,putting the kids to bed while the liberated,emancipated wife lay on the sofa watching tv.
Wow, seems like you should have put your foot down earlier than you did. Sounds like an abusive relationship. Women can be manipulative and even harmful- as a woman, I know; I have learned over the years to pick my female friends wisely as many can be destructive. Bereft of charity and often self-involved and not community oriented, Feminists and Progressives are the absolute worst – very opinionated and they are more than happy to tell you how to live your life. Here’s wishing you a more peaceful life!
Well, they’ve done a pretty good job. I came of age during the 1970s feminist movement. Although reared among the mountain families of rural American Appalachia, in trying to lift myself out of that culture I got myself all educated-up – acquiescing to, even embracing, much of Toxic Feminism. I even managed to find myself a feminist wife. Quite an experience, let me tell you – my marital home was very different from that of MY childhood. She primarily viewed me as a pack-mule whose life should be dedicated to doing MY duty – providing for the family and seeing to it that all her needs and wants were met, while hers was – what? Mostly supervising the three hired women who raised our two sons, reading books and taking notes on them, the most important of which was, “How to Manage Your Anger at Your Husband.” I wish I were kidding.
I should have said that was my ex-wife. You can even ride a good horse to death, as my father used to say, and I finally could tolerate no more and filed for divorce. Then I learned why 80%+ of American divorces are filed by the woman. My reward for decades of brutal work was that I got to keep half of my assets and see my children half of the time. Hers for 26 years of idleness? The other half of my assets, the family home, and a lifetime pension. Thus are the wages of the plow-horse who is too busy in his furrow to take off his blinders and see the landscape.
Fast forward. Men are a lot smarter now. “Man-o-sphere” Websites dot the Internet. “Red Pill” thinking predominates, men know the legal risks of wife-ing up a Western woman – who has a 50% likelihood of divorcing him – with all the above consequences – and they are not marrying – at least not Western women. The Western nuclear family is in shambles.
Congratulations, Mssrs. Marx and Engels – your work is nearly complete.
There’s a degree of comedy in how easily certain aspects of Marxist thought have been co-opted by modern capitalist economist-think. The “transactional”, “cold logic of the market” has over-whelmed nearly every aspect of our culture. Even Marxism.
And now they want us to eat bugs!#?!!
There’s a degree of comedy in how easily certain aspects of Marxist thought have been co-opted by modern capitalist economist-think. The “transactional”, “cold logic of the market” has over-whelmed nearly every aspect of our culture. Even Marxism.
And now they want us to eat bugs!#?!!
Perhaps the problem isn’t the family but the structure in which our society outside the family is constructed.
Indeed. It’s hard to believe that virtually all mammals are evil and misogynistic and need to be re-educated by Marxists.
We would be a lot happier if we could revert back to the pre industrial revolution world that the Luddites quite rightly objected to being taken away.
Indeed. It’s hard to believe that virtually all mammals are evil and misogynistic and need to be re-educated by Marxists.
We would be a lot happier if we could revert back to the pre industrial revolution world that the Luddites quite rightly objected to being taken away.
Perhaps the problem isn’t the family but the structure in which our society outside the family is constructed.
Great article. The reality is that “carers” who are not parents by choice (whether adoptive or biological hardly matters) are much more likely to brutalise and abuse children in their care. Surely to goodness we have enough experience of what happens when vulnerable kids are left to the “care” of strangers, be they step-parents, or members of a hippy commune, or members of a cult, or staff in an orphanage, or staff in a boarding school, or whatever. In every case, it’s petty cruelty and coldness at best, buggery and murder at worst. The hard left’s position on this is utopian nonsense which, as usual, derives from a fundamental misunderstanding of humanity.
Great article. The reality is that “carers” who are not parents by choice (whether adoptive or biological hardly matters) are much more likely to brutalise and abuse children in their care. Surely to goodness we have enough experience of what happens when vulnerable kids are left to the “care” of strangers, be they step-parents, or members of a hippy commune, or members of a cult, or staff in an orphanage, or staff in a boarding school, or whatever. In every case, it’s petty cruelty and coldness at best, buggery and murder at worst. The hard left’s position on this is utopian nonsense which, as usual, derives from a fundamental misunderstanding of humanity.
I get the feeling that Sophie Lewis has serious Daddy issues.
I get the feeling that Sophie Lewis has serious Daddy issues.
As usual, Harrington makes a well-informed, well-stated, and persuasive case. But is “abolish the family” a widespread movement now, something more than the the title and subject matter of a few bad books? I hope not. It sounds a bit like Peter Singer’s extreme notion of ethics: “Why care more about your own child than someone you’ve never met on the other side of the world?” Scary, but not popular.
An important and incisive point comes in the last paragraph of the article: “the heartless, lonely, atomised world of technocapital we already have” is unwittingly served by a cold ideological utopianism that seeks to “improve” humanity through the denial of anything non-material, and the attempted removal of natural bonds. In this sense, the neo-Marxists and the “move fast and break things” Tech Bros have more in common than they’d likely admit.
It’s a good question and I feel that Harrington addresses only the loudest voices who hold an extremely unpopular position. I see no mass movements to deconstruct the family into a nebulous, no-obligations-based form because it is so preposterously ridiculous. I think a much more interesting subject would to explore the forces that break familial bonds and ask if these forces are stronger, weaker, or about the same as they were in the past. Does blood relation supersede all other duties? Where should the state support care services and where should families answer the call of duty? How do we balance society’s need for children and personal fulfillment? These are timeless questions with no broad stroke answers. I would prefer to see Harrington tackle some of these complex subjects than address a few obscure scholars far removed from median opinions.
I concur. Harrington is among my favorites to read here, but perhaps fewer articles, with more scope and depth would be the thing. I certainly see her as capable of more searching work. She could still mix in a rhetorical slam-dunk or two.
Then again, that’s rather easy for me to say from the un-rigorous sidelines. And I don’t guess they pay more per word for scope and depth. I’ll continue to read her and hope for even more.
It’s almost impossible to see the individual trees when you’re in the middle of a wood. The “mass movement” had been assiduously creating a complete wrap around wallpaper to our lives for decades from the lyrics of those great sounds on the golden oldie radio station to Phil and Holly on tv each morning to point and laugh shows like I’m a celeb in the jungle where like the distraction tactic of a magician we think the point is to laugh at the discomfiture of a celeb we didn’t like but the real point is to normalize the eating of bugs.
I concur. Harrington is among my favorites to read here, but perhaps fewer articles, with more scope and depth would be the thing. I certainly see her as capable of more searching work. She could still mix in a rhetorical slam-dunk or two.
Then again, that’s rather easy for me to say from the un-rigorous sidelines. And I don’t guess they pay more per word for scope and depth. I’ll continue to read her and hope for even more.
It’s almost impossible to see the individual trees when you’re in the middle of a wood. The “mass movement” had been assiduously creating a complete wrap around wallpaper to our lives for decades from the lyrics of those great sounds on the golden oldie radio station to Phil and Holly on tv each morning to point and laugh shows like I’m a celeb in the jungle where like the distraction tactic of a magician we think the point is to laugh at the discomfiture of a celeb we didn’t like but the real point is to normalize the eating of bugs.
It’s a good question and I feel that Harrington addresses only the loudest voices who hold an extremely unpopular position. I see no mass movements to deconstruct the family into a nebulous, no-obligations-based form because it is so preposterously ridiculous. I think a much more interesting subject would to explore the forces that break familial bonds and ask if these forces are stronger, weaker, or about the same as they were in the past. Does blood relation supersede all other duties? Where should the state support care services and where should families answer the call of duty? How do we balance society’s need for children and personal fulfillment? These are timeless questions with no broad stroke answers. I would prefer to see Harrington tackle some of these complex subjects than address a few obscure scholars far removed from median opinions.
As usual, Harrington makes a well-informed, well-stated, and persuasive case. But is “abolish the family” a widespread movement now, something more than the the title and subject matter of a few bad books? I hope not. It sounds a bit like Peter Singer’s extreme notion of ethics: “Why care more about your own child than someone you’ve never met on the other side of the world?” Scary, but not popular.
An important and incisive point comes in the last paragraph of the article: “the heartless, lonely, atomised world of technocapital we already have” is unwittingly served by a cold ideological utopianism that seeks to “improve” humanity through the denial of anything non-material, and the attempted removal of natural bonds. In this sense, the neo-Marxists and the “move fast and break things” Tech Bros have more in common than they’d likely admit.
The family only works as a unit if old people carry (at least) the same clout as young people. If the old are respected and their views are considered to be important, you can have a family where everyone is supportive of each other. This does not work if old people are considered to be inferior or merely part of a duty.
A family is also closer if inheritance of property is not a key issue. In Italy, for example, many layers of family live together in rented apartments, without the worry of providing a ‘starter’ in life for the young people. Most of the older people I know think of their house as a financial base for the next generation; so by staying around in their own homes they are somehow crippling their children.
I think some of these views should be consigned to history. For gay populations, many of the older generation cut them out. How can a gay couple respect their older parents’ views that their marriage/partnership is invalid and that something is deeply wrong with them? Personally, I feel the Greatest Generation truly built a world with their kids in mind, but this was lost in later generations.
For example, in the US Harry Truman declared a National Housing Emergency from 1946 to 1947 and capped the cost of new homes along with rents. The US constructed tons of new homes to allow for a growing population to afford places to live and raise a family. Contrast that kind of action today in the US (and Ireland, Uk, New Zealand, Canada, etc). I think these obligations go both ways and younger generations feel screwed on housing, health care, and education.
It’s worth remembering that parents have been casting out children they disapproved of, for a variety of reasons, throughout history. Daughters who got pregnant or ran off with the wrong man, sons who behaved dishonourably or became drunken sots. A son or daughter being gay is just a recent addition to the range of excuses some parents have found to fall out with their children. If it could be viewed from that wider perspective perhaps that would ease the hurt a bit. Often better understanding and forgiveness, on both sides, does develop over time.
It goes the other way as well. This past week in New York, a transgender daughter just stabbed to death her father and sister, because he was ‘too religious’ and not accepting of transgenderism. Patricide and matricide are not unusual in an age of anything goes and it’s all about ‘me-me-me’..
It goes the other way as well. This past week in New York, a transgender daughter just stabbed to death her father and sister, because he was ‘too religious’ and not accepting of transgenderism. Patricide and matricide are not unusual in an age of anything goes and it’s all about ‘me-me-me’..
Facing a housing shortage and sky high inflation, the Biden Administration today has done exactly the opposite of Truman. He’s open the southern border and pulled immigrants legal and illegal from around the world putting pressure on the housing stock, wages and the healthcare system. Way to go Progressivism. Marx would be proud.
It’s worth remembering that parents have been casting out children they disapproved of, for a variety of reasons, throughout history. Daughters who got pregnant or ran off with the wrong man, sons who behaved dishonourably or became drunken sots. A son or daughter being gay is just a recent addition to the range of excuses some parents have found to fall out with their children. If it could be viewed from that wider perspective perhaps that would ease the hurt a bit. Often better understanding and forgiveness, on both sides, does develop over time.
Facing a housing shortage and sky high inflation, the Biden Administration today has done exactly the opposite of Truman. He’s open the southern border and pulled immigrants legal and illegal from around the world putting pressure on the housing stock, wages and the healthcare system. Way to go Progressivism. Marx would be proud.
I think some of these views should be consigned to history. For gay populations, many of the older generation cut them out. How can a gay couple respect their older parents’ views that their marriage/partnership is invalid and that something is deeply wrong with them? Personally, I feel the Greatest Generation truly built a world with their kids in mind, but this was lost in later generations.
For example, in the US Harry Truman declared a National Housing Emergency from 1946 to 1947 and capped the cost of new homes along with rents. The US constructed tons of new homes to allow for a growing population to afford places to live and raise a family. Contrast that kind of action today in the US (and Ireland, Uk, New Zealand, Canada, etc). I think these obligations go both ways and younger generations feel screwed on housing, health care, and education.
The family only works as a unit if old people carry (at least) the same clout as young people. If the old are respected and their views are considered to be important, you can have a family where everyone is supportive of each other. This does not work if old people are considered to be inferior or merely part of a duty.
A family is also closer if inheritance of property is not a key issue. In Italy, for example, many layers of family live together in rented apartments, without the worry of providing a ‘starter’ in life for the young people. Most of the older people I know think of their house as a financial base for the next generation; so by staying around in their own homes they are somehow crippling their children.
An excellent article and analysis as usual from Mary Harrington. The attempts at abolition of the family and farming off the care of children to the state have always been a disaster. Denmark encourages the separation of very young children from their mothers at a too early age. Even communal kibbutzim did not work in the long term.
Children can (and should) be socialised in a wider and wider circle of people as they get older, but they always need their parents, unless theirs is an unusual totally abusive relationship (which itself occurs because of the poor socialisation and selfishness, not unusually drug or alcohol dependency as well). The ‘thinkers’ Mary cites advocating the abolition of the family, are simply learn-nothing fanatics who endlessly preach how human societies can be improved by the act of pure reason, contrary to every piece if empirical evidence and the experience of every society that has existed before modern times . The aim as always, is to prioritise above everything the selfish freedom of the individual.
Also the irony that familial love is free and doesn’t cost the taxpayer anything.
The irony being that it it isn’t cost free but was and is expected to be freely given.
That’s what love is: freely given.
And that’s why it’s in increasingly short supply. Nothing is free and shouldn’t be. The giver expects love in return and has an idea of what form that love takes. It might be a ring, it might be a kiss or it might be putting the bins out without having to be asked. Only masochists love without expectation and ironically are despised for it.
“Only masochists love without expectation and ironically are despised for it.”
Thats a low opinion of mothers, don’t you think?
Mother’s of babies yes, but when the sprog is 20+? Sadly many parents discover how little their kids actually love them when it matters.
Mother’s of babies yes, but when the sprog is 20+? Sadly many parents discover how little their kids actually love them when it matters.
“Only masochists love without expectation and ironically are despised for it.”
Thats a low opinion of mothers, don’t you think?
And that’s why it’s in increasingly short supply. Nothing is free and shouldn’t be. The giver expects love in return and has an idea of what form that love takes. It might be a ring, it might be a kiss or it might be putting the bins out without having to be asked. Only masochists love without expectation and ironically are despised for it.
That’s what love is: freely given.
The irony being that it it isn’t cost free but was and is expected to be freely given.
Also the irony that familial love is free and doesn’t cost the taxpayer anything.
An excellent article and analysis as usual from Mary Harrington. The attempts at abolition of the family and farming off the care of children to the state have always been a disaster. Denmark encourages the separation of very young children from their mothers at a too early age. Even communal kibbutzim did not work in the long term.
Children can (and should) be socialised in a wider and wider circle of people as they get older, but they always need their parents, unless theirs is an unusual totally abusive relationship (which itself occurs because of the poor socialisation and selfishness, not unusually drug or alcohol dependency as well). The ‘thinkers’ Mary cites advocating the abolition of the family, are simply learn-nothing fanatics who endlessly preach how human societies can be improved by the act of pure reason, contrary to every piece if empirical evidence and the experience of every society that has existed before modern times . The aim as always, is to prioritise above everything the selfish freedom of the individual.
…Socialists are selfish, self-important narcissists who care nothing for others, behave appallingly whenever in a position of authority…and come up with clever forms of words to assert that vice is actually virtue?
…well knock me over with a feather…who knew?
…Socialists are selfish, self-important narcissists who care nothing for others, behave appallingly whenever in a position of authority…and come up with clever forms of words to assert that vice is actually virtue?
…well knock me over with a feather…who knew?
Gobble, gobble, gobble. Flobalob, WEEEEEED. These people don’t realise the convolutions they tie themselves in, reasoning from their ideologically obsessed conclusions.
The whole point of the family is that it was, and remains an organic development arising from the non-negotiable need to provide workable solutions to the real-world problems of providing sustenance and negotiating social pressures in the world about us.
This is why the population as a whole does not, cannot embrace the “shining city on a hill” of socialist doctrine. They may lack the ability to articulate it, but they know bollocks when they hear it.
Gobble, gobble, gobble. Flobalob, WEEEEEED. These people don’t realise the convolutions they tie themselves in, reasoning from their ideologically obsessed conclusions.
The whole point of the family is that it was, and remains an organic development arising from the non-negotiable need to provide workable solutions to the real-world problems of providing sustenance and negotiating social pressures in the world about us.
This is why the population as a whole does not, cannot embrace the “shining city on a hill” of socialist doctrine. They may lack the ability to articulate it, but they know bollocks when they hear it.
The thing to take into account in this debate on the necessity of family formation, is the global demographic bust on our doorstep. Ageing populations without replacement generations to take the place of retiring workforces face rapid decline pretty much *now* and going forwards. This whole thing of course plays out differently across the globe. In Europe in this context, Germany is in a pretty bad situation, France much better, the UK somewhat in the middle (because we have much less land leading to denser urbanisation leading to much smaller families – oh, and UK government housing policies in operation over the the last three decades or so are actively hostile to family formation). The US is in an excellent situation because they have a huge land mass, are energy self sufficient (shale), their energy extraction is cheap, and they can squeeze their neighbours north and south for high end expertise, and cheap manufacturing labor respectively – but most importantly they have replacement generations for the retiring boomers. China and Russia on the other hand are in dire straits because of rapidly ageing populations without replacement generations – and there is no easy fix for either. About the best they can do if I’m brutally honest, is open their doors to mass immigration – middle east and steppe for Russia and places like Thailand for China – but of course they’re not gonna do that. What they will instead do as a distraction is embark on global belligerence of the type Russia is doing and getting pasted (with likely the loss of at least a 100k young men, potentially upto half a million if conflict keeps dragging out) and Xi will do (and find opponents are better prepared than the Chinese expect) as he comes under pressure over the coming months and years. The situation looks to me very unstable, and potentially calamitously explosive.
I agree with much of what you say. It’s interesting that while wars do wipe out thousands of young men, nevertheless sometimes they are followed by a population explosion in the decades that follow, as happened here in the UK after WWII. On the other hand France which lost a third of all it’s men during WWI did not recover so easily, and that very real lack and weakness probably exacerbated their vulnerablity to the German invasion of WWII.
I agree with much of what you say. It’s interesting that while wars do wipe out thousands of young men, nevertheless sometimes they are followed by a population explosion in the decades that follow, as happened here in the UK after WWII. On the other hand France which lost a third of all it’s men during WWI did not recover so easily, and that very real lack and weakness probably exacerbated their vulnerablity to the German invasion of WWII.
The thing to take into account in this debate on the necessity of family formation, is the global demographic bust on our doorstep. Ageing populations without replacement generations to take the place of retiring workforces face rapid decline pretty much *now* and going forwards. This whole thing of course plays out differently across the globe. In Europe in this context, Germany is in a pretty bad situation, France much better, the UK somewhat in the middle (because we have much less land leading to denser urbanisation leading to much smaller families – oh, and UK government housing policies in operation over the the last three decades or so are actively hostile to family formation). The US is in an excellent situation because they have a huge land mass, are energy self sufficient (shale), their energy extraction is cheap, and they can squeeze their neighbours north and south for high end expertise, and cheap manufacturing labor respectively – but most importantly they have replacement generations for the retiring boomers. China and Russia on the other hand are in dire straits because of rapidly ageing populations without replacement generations – and there is no easy fix for either. About the best they can do if I’m brutally honest, is open their doors to mass immigration – middle east and steppe for Russia and places like Thailand for China – but of course they’re not gonna do that. What they will instead do as a distraction is embark on global belligerence of the type Russia is doing and getting pasted (with likely the loss of at least a 100k young men, potentially upto half a million if conflict keeps dragging out) and Xi will do (and find opponents are better prepared than the Chinese expect) as he comes under pressure over the coming months and years. The situation looks to me very unstable, and potentially calamitously explosive.
I learned recently that the word “utopia” was coined by Thomas More. He based it on the Greek word eutopia, which means approximately “good place”. What More’s word meant was for contrast: “no place”.
Correct. Sadly Eutopia and Utopia have become lingusitically conflated but the distinction is worth remembering.
Also, read the 1516 book and see whether the society More envisioned doesn’t have prominent dystopian aspects.
“You learned recently.”
God help us.
He authored a book in 1516 titled ” Utopia”.
Correct. Sadly Eutopia and Utopia have become lingusitically conflated but the distinction is worth remembering.
Also, read the 1516 book and see whether the society More envisioned doesn’t have prominent dystopian aspects.
“You learned recently.”
God help us.
He authored a book in 1516 titled ” Utopia”.
I learned recently that the word “utopia” was coined by Thomas More. He based it on the Greek word eutopia, which means approximately “good place”. What More’s word meant was for contrast: “no place”.
“Yes, it’s true: families can be a bit shit”.
The truest sentence I have read this week.
Best wishes,
Survivor of a fraught but somehow enjoyable family Christmas
“Yes, it’s true: families can be a bit shit”.
The truest sentence I have read this week.
Best wishes,
Survivor of a fraught but somehow enjoyable family Christmas
This is doubtless going to sound crass, naive or both in the context of the above, but there is a general solution to the above problem of how we look after our old folk, and it’s simply to live in a more advanced and far wealthier economy so that we can afford to pay what care is really worth.
And as for what care is “worth”, I do accept the final point above that while the care of an octogenarian stranger may be meaningless to the midlife taxpayer who’s already paying quite enough in tax already, we’ll all be in need of care one day and at that point the ability of the system to pay for it will matter enormously to ourselves. So there’s a crucial element to this equation in which if we are prepared to impose punishing budgets on the care of today’s needy, we should be prepared to agree to the same for ourselves. The problem is that most people won’t even fund their own pensions to the extent that they’ll later wish they had, so it’s not quite that simple, is it?
My own view is that it’s all solvable with technology and economic growth. AI and robots will form part of it, and by that I don’t mean some sterile dystopia in which old people are shunted off to homes staffed by machine slaves and left without human contact. I mean one in which there are also self-driving cars which enable old people to get around in ways they presently cannot, and care givers who are better-paid simply because the augmentation of their services through technology improves their productivity so much (which is, incidentally, how workers have become better paid in every other industry up to now).
I digress of course – it has only tangential relevance to the article. On the article generally, I always find somewhat frightening the extent of the ambitions of marxists, progressives and the various other plug-uglies of the Left to remake both society and the individual in the manner they deem to be ideal, and this article succeeded in reminding me how anti-human this always turns out to be. On markets, I’m not so persuaded – the article suffers from the common problem of market scepticism in which markets are assumed to be some sort of impersonal, cold and monolithic set of forces of which humans often are unlucky enough to feel the sharp end. In fact markets are nothing more than the collective effort of humans themselves, despite the fact that there are times when one feels distinctly at odds with what markets are prepared to provide.
As for family and its hopefully-permanent central position in our institutions and personal lives, family is compatible with free-market capitalism but not with the alternatives to it. What more of a defence of either institution do we need?
In the USA, we’d be better off if we hadn’t funded another stupid European war in the Ukraine. So far EVERY single Congressional district, there are 435!!! – has forfeited $200 million each to the Europeans – yet again!
In the USA, we’d be better off if we hadn’t funded another stupid European war in the Ukraine. So far EVERY single Congressional district, there are 435!!! – has forfeited $200 million each to the Europeans – yet again!
This is doubtless going to sound crass, naive or both in the context of the above, but there is a general solution to the above problem of how we look after our old folk, and it’s simply to live in a more advanced and far wealthier economy so that we can afford to pay what care is really worth.
And as for what care is “worth”, I do accept the final point above that while the care of an octogenarian stranger may be meaningless to the midlife taxpayer who’s already paying quite enough in tax already, we’ll all be in need of care one day and at that point the ability of the system to pay for it will matter enormously to ourselves. So there’s a crucial element to this equation in which if we are prepared to impose punishing budgets on the care of today’s needy, we should be prepared to agree to the same for ourselves. The problem is that most people won’t even fund their own pensions to the extent that they’ll later wish they had, so it’s not quite that simple, is it?
My own view is that it’s all solvable with technology and economic growth. AI and robots will form part of it, and by that I don’t mean some sterile dystopia in which old people are shunted off to homes staffed by machine slaves and left without human contact. I mean one in which there are also self-driving cars which enable old people to get around in ways they presently cannot, and care givers who are better-paid simply because the augmentation of their services through technology improves their productivity so much (which is, incidentally, how workers have become better paid in every other industry up to now).
I digress of course – it has only tangential relevance to the article. On the article generally, I always find somewhat frightening the extent of the ambitions of marxists, progressives and the various other plug-uglies of the Left to remake both society and the individual in the manner they deem to be ideal, and this article succeeded in reminding me how anti-human this always turns out to be. On markets, I’m not so persuaded – the article suffers from the common problem of market scepticism in which markets are assumed to be some sort of impersonal, cold and monolithic set of forces of which humans often are unlucky enough to feel the sharp end. In fact markets are nothing more than the collective effort of humans themselves, despite the fact that there are times when one feels distinctly at odds with what markets are prepared to provide.
As for family and its hopefully-permanent central position in our institutions and personal lives, family is compatible with free-market capitalism but not with the alternatives to it. What more of a defence of either institution do we need?
Thanks for another excellent article, Mary, even though it’s introduced me to the names of a few people I’d sooner not have heard of. Still, know your enemies, I suppose.
Seems like some people have read Huxley as an instruction manual, rather than a warning. Abolition of the family? Oh dear. To borrow from Jarvis C*cker: “the future that you’ve got mapped out / is nothing much to shout about”…
(Asterisk to avoid triggering a mod bot with a family name… oh the irony)
Thanks for another excellent article, Mary, even though it’s introduced me to the names of a few people I’d sooner not have heard of. Still, know your enemies, I suppose.
Seems like some people have read Huxley as an instruction manual, rather than a warning. Abolition of the family? Oh dear. To borrow from Jarvis C*cker: “the future that you’ve got mapped out / is nothing much to shout about”…
(Asterisk to avoid triggering a mod bot with a family name… oh the irony)
Let’s do an Ike and make the problem bigger.
There always have been, and there will always be people that grasp the wrong end of the stick.
People that believe that the developments that brought billions of humans out of poverty is a crime.
People that believe that monogamy and lifelong marriage are a disaster for women.
Now I believe that women, much more than men, believe what they are taught — as in masks for COVID. So the interesting question about Sophie Lewis is: who taught her this utter nonsense?
So you think that women are empty headed vessels who are being told that ‘monogamy and lifelong marriage are a disaster for women’ and thus won’t enter into perpetual servitude and so save society? Silly females, not knowing which arrogant people they should listen to. Or maybe, they’re making their own minds up and don’t need Sophie or Mary or Christopher to tell them what they want?
Are you suggesting that monogamy become a legal requirement, resulting in severe punishment if not adhered to? I doubt it. So you’re expecting women to police it voluntarily. You are suggesting that they tie themselves to a man regardless of how he behaves for the dubious reward of providing succour for the ‘family’… well the rest of the family as clearly she shouldn’t have any needs of her own. Assuming that her husband isn’t horrible to everyone which has been known. What’s your view on that? How lacking could a man be before a woman can reasonably ditch him?
The member of the family that invariably made them work was the mother. The woman. How ironic then that women are being blamed for the breakdown of that mostly one sided effort.
Fauci the promoter of masks and vaccines was a man. In fact the majority at the top that made decisions during covid were men.
There is absolutely nothing to back up your claim that women believe what they are taught more than men.
Who made you believe that utter nonsense?
So you think that women are empty headed vessels who are being told that ‘monogamy and lifelong marriage are a disaster for women’ and thus won’t enter into perpetual servitude and so save society? Silly females, not knowing which arrogant people they should listen to. Or maybe, they’re making their own minds up and don’t need Sophie or Mary or Christopher to tell them what they want?
Are you suggesting that monogamy become a legal requirement, resulting in severe punishment if not adhered to? I doubt it. So you’re expecting women to police it voluntarily. You are suggesting that they tie themselves to a man regardless of how he behaves for the dubious reward of providing succour for the ‘family’… well the rest of the family as clearly she shouldn’t have any needs of her own. Assuming that her husband isn’t horrible to everyone which has been known. What’s your view on that? How lacking could a man be before a woman can reasonably ditch him?
The member of the family that invariably made them work was the mother. The woman. How ironic then that women are being blamed for the breakdown of that mostly one sided effort.
Fauci the promoter of masks and vaccines was a man. In fact the majority at the top that made decisions during covid were men.
There is absolutely nothing to back up your claim that women believe what they are taught more than men.
Who made you believe that utter nonsense?
Let’s do an Ike and make the problem bigger.
There always have been, and there will always be people that grasp the wrong end of the stick.
People that believe that the developments that brought billions of humans out of poverty is a crime.
People that believe that monogamy and lifelong marriage are a disaster for women.
Now I believe that women, much more than men, believe what they are taught — as in masks for COVID. So the interesting question about Sophie Lewis is: who taught her this utter nonsense?
Another article from Mary Harrington that once again confirms the benefits and advantages that feminism creates for men.
Feminists tell us that destroying the patriarchy and family structure is good for men as well as women. It turns out that, on this point, they’ve been right all along.
All we need now is for men to stop putting the preservation of our existing society and social structure above their own best interests.
Is that really what feminists tell men? Or what men tell themselves that feminists say? Who elected those feminists to speak for other feminists, let alone other women? Or, like most commentators are they just speaking for themselves and probably didn’t say a fraction of what is attributed to them? Men ‘putting the preservation of our existing society and social structure above their own best interests.’ When did that happen? Some men maybe but not men as in most of them. And who gets to decide when society is/was the best if could be? Would that be men again? I’ve never met a woman who described herself as a feminist but I’ve met plenty of men who seemed to know a lot about them.
“Is that really what feminists tell men?”
It absolutely is. Just search online and you will find numerous articles. Or go on YouTube and watch young women repeating this message. It’s everywhere.
“Men ‘putting the preservation of our existing society and social structure above their own best interests.’ When did that happen?”
Well just look at Ukraine for an extreme example where women are free to seek safety and men are required to stay and fight. Less extreme examples include young men continuing to entertain the idea of getting married and the now antiquated notions of men being the breadwinner, financially supporting the family, etc
“I’ve never met a woman who described herself as a feminist”
You must live in a very select bubble of society.
There are lots of things said online or in articles that do not represent a majority. There is no club that feminist join up to with rules or set beliefs. Each feminist is making it up as they go along. Every group has its outliers eg Putin, and the Russians also represent men if the Ukrainians are to be used to demonstrate how heroic men can be. Almost every act of heroism can be matched with an act of evil. If you take credit for one group, you have to take the blame for the other. I advocate taking people for their own merits and not by pigeon holes.
Are men heroic to become the breadwinner of a family? To continue to do what he was doing, plus career progression, so that a woman can upend her life, future and body for their child? Gee, a low bar indeed. Perhaps if he had the baby and she stayed in work it might be more impressive? Imagine squeezing a baby out of your favourite orifice, with all the life time attendant damage. Weight gain, stretch marks, piles, hormones, massive boobs that leak milk and can even bleed when the sprog gums them regularly. I’m told it’s as repulsive as it sounds but women do it anyway… well some do and some even do it more than once. They’re mad or maybe more heroic than any man can be? Pregnancy even used to be the biggest killer of women and meant that a man’s life expectancy was much longer, despite all that danger they bravely subjected themselves to. Of course the time taken for the pregnancy and birth are just the start of the impact on a woman financially as she loses career advancement at the time of fastest growth and is the one most likely to sacrifice more time for illnesses, dentists, holidays and play dates. The argument of course is that women want babies and so must shoulder the burdens… and how is that theory working out?
Why do I know no ‘feminists’? Because the women I know just get on with life and don’t feel the need to join a group to be themselves. None of them live the same restrictive life as my female ancestors and don’t want to. Some have kids and some don’t. They live their lives by feeling their way, not by following some twit who has written a book or created a podcast. Is that feminism? It sounds a lot like what was intended by it.
Heroic? I never said heroic. It wouldn’t occur to me to use that word so lightly.
I referred to men’s sacrifice for the benefit of those that are not men and for the greater good of society.
That women also sacrifice is beside the point and irrelevant… even if they sacrifice more than men. I’m not interested in comparisons or make this a competition.
But what is the value of ‘men’s sacrifice’ to individual women? Especially when it is partnered by men’s inhumanity? Women (and men) have to choose an individual to trust their security and happiness into. Both sexes are more demanding than they used to be. Women particularly so because they now have more options.
But what is the value of ‘men’s sacrifice’ to individual women? Especially when it is partnered by men’s inhumanity? Women (and men) have to choose an individual to trust their security and happiness into. Both sexes are more demanding than they used to be. Women particularly so because they now have more options.
Heroic? I never said heroic. It wouldn’t occur to me to use that word so lightly.
I referred to men’s sacrifice for the benefit of those that are not men and for the greater good of society.
That women also sacrifice is beside the point and irrelevant… even if they sacrifice more than men. I’m not interested in comparisons or make this a competition.
That thing we were told that all the men in Ukraine are bravely at the front fighting the Russians. It’s not true. It’s another media myth. The unlucky ones who must have been already enlisted in the army are there and no doubt a few who weren’t savvy enough to wriggle out of it. Taking it for team USA. But I follow a Ukraine you tuber and MOST of the Ukraine is unaffected except by controlled power black outs and WE might be getting those. People are shopping,sightseeing,partying and clubbing,travelling to Keeeeeeev or Lviv or such fir a weekend break and having a lovely time. It’s all my eye and Betty Martin.
Ukraine says that 13,000 Ukrainian soldiers have been killed so far. The USA estimates 100,000 killed or injured. Given that there are 22 million males in Ukraine it’s certain that not all Ukrainian men are soldiers. Many are still employed in other areas. I doubt many are having “a lovely time” when even the capital is being bombed daily.
You appear to be a Russian propagandist.
Ukraine says that 13,000 Ukrainian soldiers have been killed so far. The USA estimates 100,000 killed or injured. Given that there are 22 million males in Ukraine it’s certain that not all Ukrainian men are soldiers. Many are still employed in other areas. I doubt many are having “a lovely time” when even the capital is being bombed daily.
You appear to be a Russian propagandist.
There are lots of things said online or in articles that do not represent a majority. There is no club that feminist join up to with rules or set beliefs. Each feminist is making it up as they go along. Every group has its outliers eg Putin, and the Russians also represent men if the Ukrainians are to be used to demonstrate how heroic men can be. Almost every act of heroism can be matched with an act of evil. If you take credit for one group, you have to take the blame for the other. I advocate taking people for their own merits and not by pigeon holes.
Are men heroic to become the breadwinner of a family? To continue to do what he was doing, plus career progression, so that a woman can upend her life, future and body for their child? Gee, a low bar indeed. Perhaps if he had the baby and she stayed in work it might be more impressive? Imagine squeezing a baby out of your favourite orifice, with all the life time attendant damage. Weight gain, stretch marks, piles, hormones, massive boobs that leak milk and can even bleed when the sprog gums them regularly. I’m told it’s as repulsive as it sounds but women do it anyway… well some do and some even do it more than once. They’re mad or maybe more heroic than any man can be? Pregnancy even used to be the biggest killer of women and meant that a man’s life expectancy was much longer, despite all that danger they bravely subjected themselves to. Of course the time taken for the pregnancy and birth are just the start of the impact on a woman financially as she loses career advancement at the time of fastest growth and is the one most likely to sacrifice more time for illnesses, dentists, holidays and play dates. The argument of course is that women want babies and so must shoulder the burdens… and how is that theory working out?
Why do I know no ‘feminists’? Because the women I know just get on with life and don’t feel the need to join a group to be themselves. None of them live the same restrictive life as my female ancestors and don’t want to. Some have kids and some don’t. They live their lives by feeling their way, not by following some twit who has written a book or created a podcast. Is that feminism? It sounds a lot like what was intended by it.
That thing we were told that all the men in Ukraine are bravely at the front fighting the Russians. It’s not true. It’s another media myth. The unlucky ones who must have been already enlisted in the army are there and no doubt a few who weren’t savvy enough to wriggle out of it. Taking it for team USA. But I follow a Ukraine you tuber and MOST of the Ukraine is unaffected except by controlled power black outs and WE might be getting those. People are shopping,sightseeing,partying and clubbing,travelling to Keeeeeeev or Lviv or such fir a weekend break and having a lovely time. It’s all my eye and Betty Martin.
“Is that really what feminists tell men?”
It absolutely is. Just search online and you will find numerous articles. Or go on YouTube and watch young women repeating this message. It’s everywhere.
“Men ‘putting the preservation of our existing society and social structure above their own best interests.’ When did that happen?”
Well just look at Ukraine for an extreme example where women are free to seek safety and men are required to stay and fight. Less extreme examples include young men continuing to entertain the idea of getting married and the now antiquated notions of men being the breadwinner, financially supporting the family, etc
“I’ve never met a woman who described herself as a feminist”
You must live in a very select bubble of society.
Is that really what feminists tell men? Or what men tell themselves that feminists say? Who elected those feminists to speak for other feminists, let alone other women? Or, like most commentators are they just speaking for themselves and probably didn’t say a fraction of what is attributed to them? Men ‘putting the preservation of our existing society and social structure above their own best interests.’ When did that happen? Some men maybe but not men as in most of them. And who gets to decide when society is/was the best if could be? Would that be men again? I’ve never met a woman who described herself as a feminist but I’ve met plenty of men who seemed to know a lot about them.
Another article from Mary Harrington that once again confirms the benefits and advantages that feminism creates for men.
Feminists tell us that destroying the patriarchy and family structure is good for men as well as women. It turns out that, on this point, they’ve been right all along.
All we need now is for men to stop putting the preservation of our existing society and social structure above their own best interests.
I reread Huxley’s Brave New World again recently. What a prescient book. It feels like we are on the train to that world inexorably. With the Metaverse coupled with modern cinema ever encroaching into our beds and bathrooms the “feelies” are clearly just around the corner. We don’t exactly have Some yet but couple ecstasy with prosac and we’ll get there. The author’s Mary is describing are the vanguard of the psychological component.
Guard your beds and bathrooms with your life!
Guard your beds and bathrooms with your life!
I reread Huxley’s Brave New World again recently. What a prescient book. It feels like we are on the train to that world inexorably. With the Metaverse coupled with modern cinema ever encroaching into our beds and bathrooms the “feelies” are clearly just around the corner. We don’t exactly have Some yet but couple ecstasy with prosac and we’ll get there. The author’s Mary is describing are the vanguard of the psychological component.
So, someone named Sophie Lewis hates the West, the family and wants to overthrow both in favor of — what, exactly?
Whatever.
And she’s following a path blazed by someone named Shulamith Firestone. Of course.
Every. Single. Time.
So, someone named Sophie Lewis hates the West, the family and wants to overthrow both in favor of — what, exactly?
Whatever.
And she’s following a path blazed by someone named Shulamith Firestone. Of course.
Every. Single. Time.
With family members often pursuing careers across several continents it’s not always practical to call on them for help in a crisis
I wonder if the downturn in air travel will lessen this trend, keep us all closer to home.
I wonder if the downturn in air travel will lessen this trend, keep us all closer to home.
With family members often pursuing careers across several continents it’s not always practical to call on them for help in a crisis
There’s a bit of hope in the bleak social landscape with Mary’s analysis. You do wonder where the utopians get their ideas from. Did they hate their own families when growing up? Are they so rich that they can employ poorer working women to care for their own children? You would think their ideas would disappear into a pit of incoherence but seem to gain more and more traction. Our offspring buy into this. Families are patriarchal and deny women fulfillment, and we need to save the planet anyway, so why bother?
There’s a bit of hope in the bleak social landscape with Mary’s analysis. You do wonder where the utopians get their ideas from. Did they hate their own families when growing up? Are they so rich that they can employ poorer working women to care for their own children? You would think their ideas would disappear into a pit of incoherence but seem to gain more and more traction. Our offspring buy into this. Families are patriarchal and deny women fulfillment, and we need to save the planet anyway, so why bother?
“Marx never sent any money to support him.”
Karl, like the good middle class socialist that he was, spent his life sponging off the labour of others, mostly Engels wealth from his businesses. So he never had any money he’d generated himself to support him anyway.
“Marx never sent any money to support him.”
Karl, like the good middle class socialist that he was, spent his life sponging off the labour of others, mostly Engels wealth from his businesses. So he never had any money he’d generated himself to support him anyway.
Good article but as a father of two (soon to be three) I take issue with the following: “the practical, often intimate, and sometimes gross work of nurturing, nursing and healing — work that usually falls to mothers where babies are concerned”. Not the case in my experience. I think it’s fair to say that these days, dads are getting spattered with baby piss, puke etc. pretty much from day one.
Good article but as a father of two (soon to be three) I take issue with the following: “the practical, often intimate, and sometimes gross work of nurturing, nursing and healing — work that usually falls to mothers where babies are concerned”. Not the case in my experience. I think it’s fair to say that these days, dads are getting spattered with baby piss, puke etc. pretty much from day one.
Thank you Mary for this much needed wisdom in these troubled times. We mustn’t take too much notice of Sophie Lewis, she will grow up eventually.
Thank you Mary for this much needed wisdom in these troubled times. We mustn’t take too much notice of Sophie Lewis, she will grow up eventually.
Does society need the family? Well, it needs children at least. But why do women have children? In the past, before birth control, they had little choice except to abstain. They may have wanted children, but not so many. Now with birth control available women, with a few exceptions, have children by choice. So now that the choice is made freely, why do they do it? They don’t have children so that they can bring into the world a good citizen, or that they believe the future demands children be born. They have children for reasons which can’t be explained except as some natural imperative that steadily develops over time with more urgency. Nor can they know what it’s like unless they do it. This is not a responsibility they take on for the sake of society. It’s the other way around. Society is the result of families. That’s an organic process. If we need children for the sake of maintaining numbers for the future, then we’re talking about creating workers, economic units. So why bother having families? Just produce children and feed them, educate them accordingly and keep them healthy enough to function. We don’t need mothers or families for that, we only need carers.
But if you don’t want a world like that then you have to, by and large, maintain the structure and traditions of the family. The weight of that does fall disproportionately on the mother. I think most accept that, but it doesn’t have to overburden them, or the rest of the family. Socialism, in the name of the beleaguered mother, wants to change that. And the only way to change that is through social engineering, to restructure the family, to have different priorities. Feminists thought that was an opportunity to give women freedom and more choices. It has for some. But those opportunities came about through Capitalism, not Socialism. Because of that success socialism was able to come in and begin making changes, it was a luxury produced by Capitalism that enabled them to begin tinkering with the structures that had come about naturally. For Feminists it was the right of women to seek work and have a family. But as usual it as someone else’s money that had to pay for it. So, yes, socialism and feminism are eroding the family.
Does society need the family? Well, it needs children at least. But why do women have children? In the past, before birth control, they had little choice except to abstain. They may have wanted children, but not so many. Now with birth control available women, with a few exceptions, have children by choice. So now that the choice is made freely, why do they do it? They don’t have children so that they can bring into the world a good citizen, or that they believe the future demands children be born. They have children for reasons which can’t be explained except as some natural imperative that steadily develops over time with more urgency. Nor can they know what it’s like unless they do it. This is not a responsibility they take on for the sake of society. It’s the other way around. Society is the result of families. That’s an organic process. If we need children for the sake of maintaining numbers for the future, then we’re talking about creating workers, economic units. So why bother having families? Just produce children and feed them, educate them accordingly and keep them healthy enough to function. We don’t need mothers or families for that, we only need carers.
But if you don’t want a world like that then you have to, by and large, maintain the structure and traditions of the family. The weight of that does fall disproportionately on the mother. I think most accept that, but it doesn’t have to overburden them, or the rest of the family. Socialism, in the name of the beleaguered mother, wants to change that. And the only way to change that is through social engineering, to restructure the family, to have different priorities. Feminists thought that was an opportunity to give women freedom and more choices. It has for some. But those opportunities came about through Capitalism, not Socialism. Because of that success socialism was able to come in and begin making changes, it was a luxury produced by Capitalism that enabled them to begin tinkering with the structures that had come about naturally. For Feminists it was the right of women to seek work and have a family. But as usual it as someone else’s money that had to pay for it. So, yes, socialism and feminism are eroding the family.
Until this Great Reset started under the guise of COVID I never realized how many acolytes of Satan there are in the world around me,and most of them disguised as nice people. I once pointed out that Karl Marx knew fork -all about economics as he used to regularly borrow money off his servant,the same one he knocked up,to keep his household in meagre food. I was told that Marx was dealing with economies on a grand scale,nations and businesses not the petty details of a household. But I’m now sadly,going to sound like the late Mrs Thatcher,but someone who can’t even manage their own family income is hardly qualified to preach about world economies. All that garbage about “it takes a while village to bring up a kid”,yes,I comprehend the good meaning ie if I see little Wilf or Herbert kicking a pussycat it’s ok for me to slap the little b*****d round the head or I can invite them and their sisters Hilda and Mabel into my kitchen,give them home made jam tarts awan tell them stories about the old days,but I dont want to bring up someone else’s kid or I’d a had my own. In my family is a drug addict. He has come close to killing his parents. He totally lacks charm. He gets NO HELP WHATSOEVER,the no charm being a huge factor in this. The people who are paid to care,are only paid to care DONT CARE and why should they. Nobody cares and it’s manipulative and emotional blackmail to say they should.
“Great Reset”, “acolytes of Satan” okaaaaaay.
“Great Reset”, “acolytes of Satan” okaaaaaay.
Until this Great Reset started under the guise of COVID I never realized how many acolytes of Satan there are in the world around me,and most of them disguised as nice people. I once pointed out that Karl Marx knew fork -all about economics as he used to regularly borrow money off his servant,the same one he knocked up,to keep his household in meagre food. I was told that Marx was dealing with economies on a grand scale,nations and businesses not the petty details of a household. But I’m now sadly,going to sound like the late Mrs Thatcher,but someone who can’t even manage their own family income is hardly qualified to preach about world economies. All that garbage about “it takes a while village to bring up a kid”,yes,I comprehend the good meaning ie if I see little Wilf or Herbert kicking a pussycat it’s ok for me to slap the little b*****d round the head or I can invite them and their sisters Hilda and Mabel into my kitchen,give them home made jam tarts awan tell them stories about the old days,but I dont want to bring up someone else’s kid or I’d a had my own. In my family is a drug addict. He has come close to killing his parents. He totally lacks charm. He gets NO HELP WHATSOEVER,the no charm being a huge factor in this. The people who are paid to care,are only paid to care DONT CARE and why should they. Nobody cares and it’s manipulative and emotional blackmail to say they should.
Karl Marx was a ghastly little attention-seeking creep with a bottom-full of erupting boils and a head-full of nonsense. The “Citizen Smith” of his day.
If ever the memory and thoughts of anyone deserved complete societal “cancellation” he is surely a first-class candidate.
Karl Marx was a ghastly little attention-seeking creep with a bottom-full of erupting boils and a head-full of nonsense. The “Citizen Smith” of his day.
If ever the memory and thoughts of anyone deserved complete societal “cancellation” he is surely a first-class candidate.
Mary nails it once again, exposing the ugly face of “progressivism”.
Mary nails it once again, exposing the ugly face of “progressivism”.
MARY. You are a goddamn treasure and absolutely essential reading. Fantastic essay
MARY. You are a goddamn treasure and absolutely essential reading. Fantastic essay
.
Gobble, gobble gobble; flobalob, lobalob WEEEEEEED. This is where reasoning from ideological obsessions leads to.
The point about the family, the WHOLE point really is that it is an organic development which provides workable solutions to the problems of everyday life. The socialist good thinker hates it, because the State has no role in and nor does ideology.
The general population don’t want socialism. They lack the ability to articulate it but they know nonsense when they hear it.
Gobble, gobble gobble; flobalob, lobalob WEEEEEEED. This is where reasoning from ideological obsessions leads to.
The point about the family, the WHOLE point really is that it is an organic development which provides workable solutions to the problems of everyday life. The socialist good thinker hates it, because the State has no role in and nor does ideology.
The general population don’t want socialism. They lack the ability to articulate it but they know nonsense when they hear it.
A poor article that completely misses the reality of the situation. The changes in family are not down to socialism or feminism. Any influence from those spheres is minimal and they merely echo what is really happening – freedom to choose. OK, those choices might be wrong and damaging for society but they’re driven by valid emotions, not twisted left wing ideals. Men don’t want to commit and women are both nervous to ask for security in case it scares their man off and they’re also afraid of not getting life long security without having to put up with some sort of pain – mental, physical or both. Women lose so much by shouldering the responsibilities of having children that they need life long compensation and they need it ungrudgingly. Increasingly women decide not to have kids because of the risks and/or lack of support. The added opportunity to care for both her parents and his isn’t remotely attractive. You dance around the reality that the caring aspect of family invariably falls to women but don’t answer the question – what’s in it for her? Relying on female instincts isn’t working very well anymore and hoping to guilt them into it is laughably naive. Truth is, women were never as happy with the situation as society pretended. In the past, they had few options. Is a return to forcing women into creating ‘family’ the answer? Is it remotely fair? Aren’t us right wingers all about people having the right to choose and the market countering choices that don’t suit it by offering more incentives? Society needs to work out how to support family without one member paying most of the price.
Caring is hard, probably the hardest job there is but it is massively under appreciated. Poorly paid but often demanded for free (as in family). Women are assumed to have the magic skill of caring and expected to use it without reward. They’re even condemned for lacking or hoarding the ability. Men often resent being asked to show that they care, never mind provide it willingly. The excuse is that they’re not built that way. Well sorry but it turns out most women aren’t built that way either.
“Is a return to forcing women into creating ‘family’ the answer?”
Who’s talking about forcing women to create “family”? The only people we’re talking about supporting a family are the ones that want to. Caring is not under appreciated. Maybe you’ve never experienced it. You’re idea of family, relationships between men and women and the need for compensation for caring is so far removed from reality it makes me wonder if you have any idea about what you’re talking about. You seem to have no idea whatsoever about what having children amounts to, like it’s some sort of chore. All people who are caring care. Those who don’t then live without it. Caring and raising children is a mix of intense emotions and physical demands. What compensates, what keeps you going is love. Freedom to chose? Who’s denying that? “The changes in family”: what do you mean by that: the need, (not choice), for some women to go to work, or not having children? Not having children is not about family, that’s about no family. So what’s left is the conditions of having a family. If a couple want children it seems counter productive that they should both have to work and leave their children with others, which reduces what they earn. That’s an economic unit, not a family. This is not that complicated.
‘Supporting family’ no, this article and the comments are one long whinge about how socialism and feminism have ruined family and that’s not remotely true. Those modern movements offered women choices and they’ve made theirs, not necessarily for society’s advantage. It’s a genie that short of societal collapse won’t go back into the bottle. And shouldn’t. The reality is that women did and still do the bulk of the caring. It’s not necessarily true of every man or woman but it’s the norm. Caring about others, especially children, is costly on every front. Women still care but they limit how many recipients they care for. Women can’t rely on the father of their children being caring to them or even the children. They never could but they had no choice but to join up with a man and stick with him. They want more ‘caring’ than just a pay packet. Women are now more wary, to the point some don’t invest in new family at all. They choose to be alone than be let down.
Women increasingly don’t want to be the second class citizen in the family where she’s the unpaid servant to everyone. Until she goes back to work, where she’s still the second class citizen because she’s had so much time out of the job, or didn’t get the job at all because she might have had kids or elderly relatives that needed her time and energy.
Do I know what a loving family looks like. Very much I do, which is why I know that this article is utter tosh.
As you imply, the destruction of the patriarchy and the abolition of traditional marriage would indeed provide benefits for women.
Men would also benefit, probably even more than women since their biology provides them fewer restrictions and allows them more freedom of choice in life.
All that is needed is for men as a group to stop acting against their own best interests,
I didn’t imply any such thing. The breakdown of marriage as a prison is the result of rightful freedoms. Marriage as a partnership is still possible and welcome but not remotely guaranteed. ‘for men as a group to stop acting against their own best interests,’ is a failure to have children against their best interest? Is it against their interest to be alone apart from sex? Stats say that men suffer more alone than women, especially as they age. Apart from sharing their money, men get a lot out of marriage. So what is it worth? Society undervalues the female contribution, such that men think that their money is worth more than everything a woman puts into family. The result is that family is in decline.
I didn’t imply any such thing. The breakdown of marriage as a prison is the result of rightful freedoms. Marriage as a partnership is still possible and welcome but not remotely guaranteed. ‘for men as a group to stop acting against their own best interests,’ is a failure to have children against their best interest? Is it against their interest to be alone apart from sex? Stats say that men suffer more alone than women, especially as they age. Apart from sharing their money, men get a lot out of marriage. So what is it worth? Society undervalues the female contribution, such that men think that their money is worth more than everything a woman puts into family. The result is that family is in decline.
“Until she goes back to work, where she’s still the second class citizen “
Many men live that life in dreary, unsatisfying jobs, where all they get from it is a wage so that they can support their family. It may be difficult for you to understand the life of a man, the responsibility that goes with it, but that responsibility is real and it’s there 24 hours a day.
She’s typical of many modern women who want everything men have until they get it and then they want to change it because it’s not as good as they were led to believe. Plus they want to cherry pick only the parts that benefit them. All the advantages and none of the responsibilities.
Women don’t want it all of the good an none of the bad things, they want 50%. They unavoidably have the life changing part of having a family. What’s that worth? ‘All the advantages and none of the responsibilities.’ Now you’re having a laugh. You instinctively put no value on motherhood and disregard the disadvantages. No wonder modern women are coming to agree with you and don’t want to take it on.
Women don’t want it all of the good an none of the bad things, they want 50%. They unavoidably have the life changing part of having a family. What’s that worth? ‘All the advantages and none of the responsibilities.’ Now you’re having a laugh. You instinctively put no value on motherhood and disregard the disadvantages. No wonder modern women are coming to agree with you and don’t want to take it on.
She’s typical of many modern women who want everything men have until they get it and then they want to change it because it’s not as good as they were led to believe. Plus they want to cherry pick only the parts that benefit them. All the advantages and none of the responsibilities.
As you imply, the destruction of the patriarchy and the abolition of traditional marriage would indeed provide benefits for women.
Men would also benefit, probably even more than women since their biology provides them fewer restrictions and allows them more freedom of choice in life.
All that is needed is for men as a group to stop acting against their own best interests,
“Until she goes back to work, where she’s still the second class citizen “
Many men live that life in dreary, unsatisfying jobs, where all they get from it is a wage so that they can support their family. It may be difficult for you to understand the life of a man, the responsibility that goes with it, but that responsibility is real and it’s there 24 hours a day.
‘Supporting family’ no, this article and the comments are one long whinge about how socialism and feminism have ruined family and that’s not remotely true. Those modern movements offered women choices and they’ve made theirs, not necessarily for society’s advantage. It’s a genie that short of societal collapse won’t go back into the bottle. And shouldn’t. The reality is that women did and still do the bulk of the caring. It’s not necessarily true of every man or woman but it’s the norm. Caring about others, especially children, is costly on every front. Women still care but they limit how many recipients they care for. Women can’t rely on the father of their children being caring to them or even the children. They never could but they had no choice but to join up with a man and stick with him. They want more ‘caring’ than just a pay packet. Women are now more wary, to the point some don’t invest in new family at all. They choose to be alone than be let down.
Women increasingly don’t want to be the second class citizen in the family where she’s the unpaid servant to everyone. Until she goes back to work, where she’s still the second class citizen because she’s had so much time out of the job, or didn’t get the job at all because she might have had kids or elderly relatives that needed her time and energy.
Do I know what a loving family looks like. Very much I do, which is why I know that this article is utter tosh.
“Is a return to forcing women into creating ‘family’ the answer?”
Who’s talking about forcing women to create “family”? The only people we’re talking about supporting a family are the ones that want to. Caring is not under appreciated. Maybe you’ve never experienced it. You’re idea of family, relationships between men and women and the need for compensation for caring is so far removed from reality it makes me wonder if you have any idea about what you’re talking about. You seem to have no idea whatsoever about what having children amounts to, like it’s some sort of chore. All people who are caring care. Those who don’t then live without it. Caring and raising children is a mix of intense emotions and physical demands. What compensates, what keeps you going is love. Freedom to chose? Who’s denying that? “The changes in family”: what do you mean by that: the need, (not choice), for some women to go to work, or not having children? Not having children is not about family, that’s about no family. So what’s left is the conditions of having a family. If a couple want children it seems counter productive that they should both have to work and leave their children with others, which reduces what they earn. That’s an economic unit, not a family. This is not that complicated.
A poor article that completely misses the reality of the situation. The changes in family are not down to socialism or feminism. Any influence from those spheres is minimal and they merely echo what is really happening – freedom to choose. OK, those choices might be wrong and damaging for society but they’re driven by valid emotions, not twisted left wing ideals. Men don’t want to commit and women are both nervous to ask for security in case it scares their man off and they’re also afraid of not getting life long security without having to put up with some sort of pain – mental, physical or both. Women lose so much by shouldering the responsibilities of having children that they need life long compensation and they need it ungrudgingly. Increasingly women decide not to have kids because of the risks and/or lack of support. The added opportunity to care for both her parents and his isn’t remotely attractive. You dance around the reality that the caring aspect of family invariably falls to women but don’t answer the question – what’s in it for her? Relying on female instincts isn’t working very well anymore and hoping to guilt them into it is laughably naive. Truth is, women were never as happy with the situation as society pretended. In the past, they had few options. Is a return to forcing women into creating ‘family’ the answer? Is it remotely fair? Aren’t us right wingers all about people having the right to choose and the market countering choices that don’t suit it by offering more incentives? Society needs to work out how to support family without one member paying most of the price.
Caring is hard, probably the hardest job there is but it is massively under appreciated. Poorly paid but often demanded for free (as in family). Women are assumed to have the magic skill of caring and expected to use it without reward. They’re even condemned for lacking or hoarding the ability. Men often resent being asked to show that they care, never mind provide it willingly. The excuse is that they’re not built that way. Well sorry but it turns out most women aren’t built that way either.
I’ll admit I skimmed a lot of this but some people have some romanticised ideas of what family is, that many people do not. I’ve seen first hand too many women break under the strain of feeling they have to do it all particularly when it comes to child care. I’ve seen broken adult children trying to repair a dysfunctional relationship with their narcissistic parents. Uncoupling care with care is what we’ve done in my family and it works. We care for our elderly and our children because we should, we are obligated to. But we also enrich each others lives because we choose to, because we care. Those things do not need to coexist. You should be able to care without wanting to care, or care without having to care.
Abolishing the family doesn’t mean you can’t have one. It just means you are not trapped in obligation to your relatives and can find a family, for either type of care, outside of them if you need one. We need a village, but one enshrined in law and on a national scale because we’re mostly all too selfish to mobilise one on our own.
I certainly tend more towards that aspect of family your describe. Family life is just great for most people, but for those unfortunate enough to be born to dysfunctional parents for instance, the stark reality is that escaping at the earliest opportunity may be the only way to survive to become a functioning adult.
That reality must be acknowledged, and i think Mary does acknowledge it, being the highly intelligent and sensitive human being she is. But let’s not start putting rose-tinted blinkers on about family; they can be sources of love, comfort and care, but also the opposite. The state simply has to make provision for those whose family life requires them to cut their blood ties and seek kinship elsewhere.
Yes, but it can’t be institutionalized or outsourced the the State wholesale, which I think you’d acknowledge yourself. Genuine, voluntary bonds of love and care can at least mirror family ties.
I certainly do acknowledge that. The problem with state provision is that it mirrors human beings in being essentially flawed, and neither the best regulation in the world or a limitless amount of funding will perfect that.
I certainly do acknowledge that. The problem with state provision is that it mirrors human beings in being essentially flawed, and neither the best regulation in the world or a limitless amount of funding will perfect that.
Anything that can help people can also hurt them in some circumstances. No one argues that every family is perfect or that any family can be. And no one denies that more and more families are breaking down under pressure in a society that is becoming profoundly hostile to the institution (and to all institutions). The state should indeed step in therefore, to some extent, when a family breaks down. So far, your point is well taken.
But the topic of this essay is broader than that. State intervention should be the last resort, not the norm. Even though we don’t need “rose-tinted blinkers” (much less, as Eyre puts it, “romanticised ideas”), we do need a communal standard, a commonly accepted ideal, to support and reach for. We have both historical and cross-cultural evidence that the family–preferably the extended family–has for a very long time helped communities to accomplish universal goals: bringing men and women together on an enduring basis in order to create the best possible setting for children (and therefore to perpetuate the community). We have no evidence, however, that relying heavily on the state does anything to promote the best in human nature. Consequently, I reject the anti-family claims of utopian ideologies such as Marxism, Feminism or Wokism.
In terms of a broader point, there’s an even broader aspect of our existence that impacts upon this issue: DNA. There’s enough evidence to suggest that all species protect their inheritable characteristics, and that caring for one’s family is simply an expression of that basic element of life. As such, any attempts by anti-family ideologues are doomed to failure.
That’s not to say that such ideologies can’t cause damage – they certainly can, and do. I view them as an expression of the exploration of our natures as humans, and therefore on a par with war-mongering, or the lust for power. Unfortunately, families can be tyrannical too, and especially when dominated by an abusive and/or belligerent male or female. Yes, by either!
In terms of a broader point, there’s an even broader aspect of our existence that impacts upon this issue: DNA. There’s enough evidence to suggest that all species protect their inheritable characteristics, and that caring for one’s family is simply an expression of that basic element of life. As such, any attempts by anti-family ideologues are doomed to failure.
That’s not to say that such ideologies can’t cause damage – they certainly can, and do. I view them as an expression of the exploration of our natures as humans, and therefore on a par with war-mongering, or the lust for power. Unfortunately, families can be tyrannical too, and especially when dominated by an abusive and/or belligerent male or female. Yes, by either!
I was with you up to the last sentence. Don’t get the State involved.
Who else, then?
Voluntary groups and charities, such as the one I volunteer for which runs activities for people living with dementia, their carers and families.
Voluntary groups and charities, such as the one I volunteer for which runs activities for people living with dementia, their carers and families.
Who else, then?
Yes, but it can’t be institutionalized or outsourced the the State wholesale, which I think you’d acknowledge yourself. Genuine, voluntary bonds of love and care can at least mirror family ties.
Anything that can help people can also hurt them in some circumstances. No one argues that every family is perfect or that any family can be. And no one denies that more and more families are breaking down under pressure in a society that is becoming profoundly hostile to the institution (and to all institutions). The state should indeed step in therefore, to some extent, when a family breaks down. So far, your point is well taken.
But the topic of this essay is broader than that. State intervention should be the last resort, not the norm. Even though we don’t need “rose-tinted blinkers” (much less, as Eyre puts it, “romanticised ideas”), we do need a communal standard, a commonly accepted ideal, to support and reach for. We have both historical and cross-cultural evidence that the family–preferably the extended family–has for a very long time helped communities to accomplish universal goals: bringing men and women together on an enduring basis in order to create the best possible setting for children (and therefore to perpetuate the community). We have no evidence, however, that relying heavily on the state does anything to promote the best in human nature. Consequently, I reject the anti-family claims of utopian ideologies such as Marxism, Feminism or Wokism.
I was with you up to the last sentence. Don’t get the State involved.
But abolition, by definition, does mean you can’t have one unless it’s in secret. You seem to be talking about de-centering or relaxing family ties, a much more reasonable argument.
I understand your point of view and agree with much of what you say. However, caring through obligation alone is pretty hard to sustain, a true sacrifice. Fortunately, real care usually brings some mutual reward, which can at least begin to outweigh the baggage and damage that are also part of most family life. I know that’s not true in some cases.
Am I misreading you to imply that caring for children and elderly relatives is merely obligatory or automatic?
But in re-reading your comment I can’t agree at all that we need or can handle a state-ordered village. How would that differ from a coercive police state dressed in benign slogans and propaganda about the Greater Good? [#Hot Fuzz]
“Abolishing the family doesn’t mean you can’t have one”
Of course it does, unless the dictionaries have unilaterally changed the definition of “abolish” under our feet, as well as “woman”. And the idea that people who are individually “mostly all too selfish” to care for their own will be capable of creating a loving and genuinely caring social network to care for others is for the birds. It will be – increasingly is – a hellscape.
Many families are dysfunctional and even abusive. But not nearly as dysfunctional and abusive as an entirely socialised system of ‘care’ would be. That should be obvious to anyone with eyes and ears and a modicum of experience of how human beings actually behave.
I certainly tend more towards that aspect of family your describe. Family life is just great for most people, but for those unfortunate enough to be born to dysfunctional parents for instance, the stark reality is that escaping at the earliest opportunity may be the only way to survive to become a functioning adult.
That reality must be acknowledged, and i think Mary does acknowledge it, being the highly intelligent and sensitive human being she is. But let’s not start putting rose-tinted blinkers on about family; they can be sources of love, comfort and care, but also the opposite. The state simply has to make provision for those whose family life requires them to cut their blood ties and seek kinship elsewhere.
But abolition, by definition, does mean you can’t have one unless it’s in secret. You seem to be talking about de-centering or relaxing family ties, a much more reasonable argument.
I understand your point of view and agree with much of what you say. However, caring through obligation alone is pretty hard to sustain, a true sacrifice. Fortunately, real care usually brings some mutual reward, which can at least begin to outweigh the baggage and damage that are also part of most family life. I know that’s not true in some cases.
Am I misreading you to imply that caring for children and elderly relatives is merely obligatory or automatic?
But in re-reading your comment I can’t agree at all that we need or can handle a state-ordered village. How would that differ from a coercive police state dressed in benign slogans and propaganda about the Greater Good? [#Hot Fuzz]
“Abolishing the family doesn’t mean you can’t have one”
Of course it does, unless the dictionaries have unilaterally changed the definition of “abolish” under our feet, as well as “woman”. And the idea that people who are individually “mostly all too selfish” to care for their own will be capable of creating a loving and genuinely caring social network to care for others is for the birds. It will be – increasingly is – a hellscape.
Many families are dysfunctional and even abusive. But not nearly as dysfunctional and abusive as an entirely socialised system of ‘care’ would be. That should be obvious to anyone with eyes and ears and a modicum of experience of how human beings actually behave.
I’ll admit I skimmed a lot of this but some people have some romanticised ideas of what family is, that many people do not. I’ve seen first hand too many women break under the strain of feeling they have to do it all particularly when it comes to child care. I’ve seen broken adult children trying to repair a dysfunctional relationship with their narcissistic parents. Uncoupling care with care is what we’ve done in my family and it works. We care for our elderly and our children because we should, we are obligated to. But we also enrich each others lives because we choose to, because we care. Those things do not need to coexist. You should be able to care without wanting to care, or care without having to care.
Abolishing the family doesn’t mean you can’t have one. It just means you are not trapped in obligation to your relatives and can find a family, for either type of care, outside of them if you need one. We need a village, but one enshrined in law and on a national scale because we’re mostly all too selfish to mobilise one on our own.
Having read quite a lot recently (and attended a few lectures) about matriarchal families I am fairly convinced that this way of arranging society would work better than the current nuclear model. Everyone stays in or near the female line the sons work to support their mothers sisters nephews and nieces and visit their biological children in neighbouring families. I’m of the opinion that mothers in general tend to provide for children better than fathers in general as evinced by current statistics on absent fathers.
Nearly all family break ups are caused
by women.
The absent fathers are driven out and the state takes on the role of the father, women refuse to take accountability.
Men lose everything.
Modern feminism is the cancer that is destroying
society in the west.
Oooooook. While the original poster you’re replying to is also a nutter, you got anything to back up your assertion that most family break ups are caused by women?
That just sounds like
It makes a nice one liner
For your point.
If America wasn’t exporting its crazy politics,
We wouldn’t be having this debate right now.
If that poster for the matriarchy is British
I will eat my hat.
British woman, sick of ridiculous feminist/ trans debates spawning ridiculous opinions and assertions the other way. This stuff just. I can’t cope with it. Haven’t we got bigger fish to fry? Both sides of this comment are ridiculous. Hardcore Matriarchy vs evil women splitting up the family. Sensible debate here. Yeah.
Triggered or what ?
I am not a nutter because YOU disagree.
Grow up.
It is a statistical fact that in the west at least
70% of divorces are instigated by the wife.
It is probably closer to 95%.
I said nothing about evil women.
Modern feminism is the problem.
That is all I said.
In the UK no.
Its estimated 62%.
That is not nearly all break ups.
In fact its not even two thirds.
Where have you got 95% from?
If you are not an American nutter,
Throwing around loose figures (typical)
I will eat my other hat.
I will never grow up.
Who calls the lawyers is not necessarily who instigated the break up. Cheating, bad behaviour, abuse or just neglect can be the cause.
I agree, the one who initiates divorce is not necessarily the cause if it.
It always takes two to tango….
It always takes two to tango….
I agree, the one who initiates divorce is not necessarily the cause if it.
In the UK no.
Its estimated 62%.
That is not nearly all break ups.
In fact its not even two thirds.
Where have you got 95% from?
If you are not an American nutter,
Throwing around loose figures (typical)
I will eat my other hat.
I will never grow up.
Who calls the lawyers is not necessarily who instigated the break up. Cheating, bad behaviour, abuse or just neglect can be the cause.
Triggered or what ?
I am not a nutter because YOU disagree.
Grow up.
It is a statistical fact that in the west at least
70% of divorces are instigated by the wife.
It is probably closer to 95%.
I said nothing about evil women.
Modern feminism is the problem.
That is all I said.
Yup – in the USA, women initiate 75% of divorces.
I am not in the USA though. The USAs figures do not apply to the world. So saying modern feminism is destroying the family and applying that to UK based on American figures, is absolute tosh. Next.
I am not in the USA though. The USAs figures do not apply to the world. So saying modern feminism is destroying the family and applying that to UK based on American figures, is absolute tosh. Next.
Oooooook. While the original poster you’re replying to is also a nutter, you got anything to back up your assertion that most family break ups are caused by women?
That just sounds like
It makes a nice one liner
For your point.
If America wasn’t exporting its crazy politics,
We wouldn’t be having this debate right now.
If that poster for the matriarchy is British
I will eat my hat.
British woman, sick of ridiculous feminist/ trans debates spawning ridiculous opinions and assertions the other way. This stuff just. I can’t cope with it. Haven’t we got bigger fish to fry? Both sides of this comment are ridiculous. Hardcore Matriarchy vs evil women splitting up the family. Sensible debate here. Yeah.
Yup – in the USA, women initiate 75% of divorces.
Why not a more co-operative model rather than an inverted arrangement of prejudicial control? Your plan sounds like an attempt to combat historical and (lesser but real) present-day sexism with more sexism, swapping patriarchy for matriarchy. I think fathers still provide more–on average–in the material sense and that mothers–on average–are far more nurturing, especially when both parents are in the home. What’s so bad about the good version of this arrangement? I don’t think we need to scrap a nature-encoded system that works well enough when its done right for a more sex-separated society run by female chauvinists.
Agnatic families are the rule the world over since the dawn of civilizations of all stripes. When you see something that universal there are generally very good reasons.
But cooperative. And in many cases, women have had a lot of power.
But yes, who could fail to agree? The world evolved that way for a reason.
Indeed. But it seems like the philosophy behind gender identity fundamentally disagrees.
Indeed. But it seems like the philosophy behind gender identity fundamentally disagrees.
But cooperative. And in many cases, women have had a lot of power.
But yes, who could fail to agree? The world evolved that way for a reason.
How about the status quo that got us here, to the absolute zenith of civilisation, in the first place?!
Why would one mess with that? It’s an invention that society has been a patriarchy. We need you, you need us. As simple as that.
All of this is designed to destroy the centuries of accumulated wisdom we used to get here.
This stuff is ridiculous, unnecessary, and egregious, designed to remake society in a worse way.
Stop it. Just stop it.
Nearly all family break ups are caused
by women.
The absent fathers are driven out and the state takes on the role of the father, women refuse to take accountability.
Men lose everything.
Modern feminism is the cancer that is destroying
society in the west.
Why not a more co-operative model rather than an inverted arrangement of prejudicial control? Your plan sounds like an attempt to combat historical and (lesser but real) present-day sexism with more sexism, swapping patriarchy for matriarchy. I think fathers still provide more–on average–in the material sense and that mothers–on average–are far more nurturing, especially when both parents are in the home. What’s so bad about the good version of this arrangement? I don’t think we need to scrap a nature-encoded system that works well enough when its done right for a more sex-separated society run by female chauvinists.
Agnatic families are the rule the world over since the dawn of civilizations of all stripes. When you see something that universal there are generally very good reasons.
How about the status quo that got us here, to the absolute zenith of civilisation, in the first place?!
Why would one mess with that? It’s an invention that society has been a patriarchy. We need you, you need us. As simple as that.
All of this is designed to destroy the centuries of accumulated wisdom we used to get here.
This stuff is ridiculous, unnecessary, and egregious, designed to remake society in a worse way.
Stop it. Just stop it.
Having read quite a lot recently (and attended a few lectures) about matriarchal families I am fairly convinced that this way of arranging society would work better than the current nuclear model. Everyone stays in or near the female line the sons work to support their mothers sisters nephews and nieces and visit their biological children in neighbouring families. I’m of the opinion that mothers in general tend to provide for children better than fathers in general as evinced by current statistics on absent fathers.
The one institution – above all others – that creates, maintains and increases inequality is the family. If we are to get rid of inequality we must get rid of the family – every other solution is just tinkering around the edges.
Although, there might be one or two disadvantages…
“The one institution – above all others – that creates, maintains and increases inequality is the family.”
In what way, what sort of inequalities?
Another fantastic article from Mary. Yes. Neo-liberalism hates family and community.
Alan is right of course. Families inherit much they did not earn. Families stop meritocracy. The Biden family is a good example. Jo Blogs inherits $10000000 and 50000 hectares after fighting the rest of the family in courts for 10 years. Jo Flogs inherits nothing but love and a deep connection to his family and community. You choose who the winner is.
Not a very persuasive comment. I don’t know if Neo-liberalism hates families or not, but do you really think getting rid of the family will rid us of inequality? If so, how? And the idea that families inherit wealth they didn’t earn suggests all families have this wealth stashed away. Families do not stop meritocracy. Choosing the Biden family is just a red herring. Though you replied to my comment you didn’t really address my question.
The richest income groups in the West are Indians and East Asians.
The lowest performing are blacks.
Children inherit from their families. But the biggest inheritance is culture, values and work ethic.
The gap in achievement between ethnic groups and genders not an indictment of families. That’s am indictment of those victim groups that either do not have families in the first place (compare Black and Indian / Asian fatherless rates) or lack the guts to take responsibility for their own lives.
So those who emerge from bad families and communities should be given some kind of helping hand, or just declared losers in the genetic and situational lottery?
Maybe incentivise fathers to fulfil their roles, tone down incentives for early pregnancy and single motherhood, make it easier for father’s to access children after divorce, and emphasise the importance and responsibility of fathers in media and education.
American blacks were not “losers” till the 60s, and neither are immigrants from African countries like Nigeria.
Maybe incentivise fathers to fulfil their roles, tone down incentives for early pregnancy and single motherhood, make it easier for father’s to access children after divorce, and emphasise the importance and responsibility of fathers in media and education.
American blacks were not “losers” till the 60s, and neither are immigrants from African countries like Nigeria.
So those who emerge from bad families and communities should be given some kind of helping hand, or just declared losers in the genetic and situational lottery?
Not a very persuasive comment. I don’t know if Neo-liberalism hates families or not, but do you really think getting rid of the family will rid us of inequality? If so, how? And the idea that families inherit wealth they didn’t earn suggests all families have this wealth stashed away. Families do not stop meritocracy. Choosing the Biden family is just a red herring. Though you replied to my comment you didn’t really address my question.
The richest income groups in the West are Indians and East Asians.
The lowest performing are blacks.
Children inherit from their families. But the biggest inheritance is culture, values and work ethic.
The gap in achievement between ethnic groups and genders not an indictment of families. That’s am indictment of those victim groups that either do not have families in the first place (compare Black and Indian / Asian fatherless rates) or lack the guts to take responsibility for their own lives.
Another fantastic article from Mary. Yes. Neo-liberalism hates family and community.
Alan is right of course. Families inherit much they did not earn. Families stop meritocracy. The Biden family is a good example. Jo Blogs inherits $10000000 and 50000 hectares after fighting the rest of the family in courts for 10 years. Jo Flogs inherits nothing but love and a deep connection to his family and community. You choose who the winner is.
If true that would bolster my scepticism about equality rather than the family.
Two of those disadvantages are the total breakdown of society and soaring crime.
What the hell do you even mean by inequality ?
People are not born equal.
Why on God’s green earth should we seek equality of outcomes? I believe firmly in charity so that no one suffers profound material deprivation, but true equality of outcomes would be a dystopian disaster.
If you actually could construct a society where the laziest, stupidest, and most belligerent person gets to consume as much a the hardest working, smartest, most cooperative person, then you will have a hell-scape. It would be the Gulag writ large. Either no one would produce more than they personally needed to survive or you’d have to have a massively coercive state that enslaves people and forces them to toil in work camps. Oh, and you can be sure the administrators of that state won’t be happy with the low level of consumption for themselves.
We’ve seen this movie. The USSR, Maoist China, Cambodia under Pol Pot. It always ends in starvation and the Gulag.
“The one institution – above all others – that creates, maintains and increases inequality is the family.”
In what way, what sort of inequalities?
If true that would bolster my scepticism about equality rather than the family.
Two of those disadvantages are the total breakdown of society and soaring crime.
What the hell do you even mean by inequality ?
People are not born equal.
Why on God’s green earth should we seek equality of outcomes? I believe firmly in charity so that no one suffers profound material deprivation, but true equality of outcomes would be a dystopian disaster.
If you actually could construct a society where the laziest, stupidest, and most belligerent person gets to consume as much a the hardest working, smartest, most cooperative person, then you will have a hell-scape. It would be the Gulag writ large. Either no one would produce more than they personally needed to survive or you’d have to have a massively coercive state that enslaves people and forces them to toil in work camps. Oh, and you can be sure the administrators of that state won’t be happy with the low level of consumption for themselves.
We’ve seen this movie. The USSR, Maoist China, Cambodia under Pol Pot. It always ends in starvation and the Gulag.
The one institution – above all others – that creates, maintains and increases inequality is the family. If we are to get rid of inequality we must get rid of the family – every other solution is just tinkering around the edges.
Although, there might be one or two disadvantages…