Headline: “We Can't Have a Feminist Future Without Abolishing the Family.”
That does clarify things. Now we just have to sort out whether feminism or the family is of greater value. I imagine that even if we left the decision entirely to women, family would come out easily on top.
9 comments:
She is a child with a high vocabulary.
So are we all.
And since the family is the very foundation of society, it would the collapse of civilization. Nice work, Ms. Lewis.
So many people think the wrecking ball is the only useful tool. That's not a political philosophy, it's a tantrum.
Here's a thought: arrange your family the way you and your family want it, and work hard to keep the government and other officious intermeddlers out of it. I'll help.
If you don't mind, treat your economic, religious, and medical decisions the same way. No need to destroy my prosperity, my faith, or my healthcare so you can feel more in control of your chaotic, incompetent life.
Yeah. As I’ve mentioned before, some several of my friends are working feminist philosophers. There is a constant struggle against the push from this radical wing. Mostly they want better pay and working conditions, rather than to eliminate families and radically restructure the whole human race. Some are even devoted mothers whose difficult way of making space for their work amid their duties as parents I find highly admirable.
That said, the struggle happens more than I think it should via hidden action to limit the spread or platforms for the radical ideas. Publicly there’s little challenge from the pro-family feminists. I think they believe they need to pick their fights, and would be better off ‘fighting the patriarchy’ than other feminists. The problem is that they cut themselves off from what might even be a majority of men who would give in to the lesser, reformist demands if only it didn’t look like a road to destroying their families and indeed their civilization.
Having spent a lot of time in recovery meetings, what Ms. Lewis is writing about is simply FOO versus FOC: Family Of Origin versus Family Of Choice. It's not particularly intellectual, philosophical, or deep. It simply means that if your biological family does not provide the care and nurturing you need, you can look elsewhere, among like-minded people who will support you in the way you need (or desire). I do not understand the need to take one's own pain and wishes and turn them into policy prescriptions for everyone else (to echo Tex). Although I suppose it's easier to think that it is The Family that is the problem rather than accepting that it is her family that was broken. Having parents who don't care for you does terrible things to a child.
I also don't understand why, if Ms. Lewis' mother provided so little care, Ms. Lewis cared for her dying mother; surely Ms. Lewis would not argue that their biological connection imposes any type of obligation on her. Even less do I understand why she continues to interact with her father; don't read Facebook and delete his emails - unless, of course, there is some tie there that is not so easy to break.
It’s as old as Plato’s _Republic_, even. So why has no society successfully adopted the model?
Well, Aristotle responded to this very idea the young lady is advancing in Politics 2:
“ Property that is common to the greatest number of owners receives the least attention; men care most for their private possessions, and for what they own in common less, or only so far as it falls to their own individual share for in addition to the other reasons, they think less of it on the ground that someone else is thinking about it, just as in household service a large number of domestics sometimes give worse attendance than a smaller number. And it results in each citizen's having a thousand sons, and these do not belong to them as individuals but any child is equally the son of anyone, so that all alike will regard them with indifference.”
Wo Ah. Did you guys see that pre market stock dip?
Ah, humanity, this is when the Loosh begins flowing to the dark gods. So much fear and panick.
People who got out at all time highs like Raven, will have a good situation to buy the low dip.
People's confidence in "virology" is not as high as they think, given the masses reliance on superficially corupt healthcare. Doctors have termed it "moral injury" or some such.
Now that I've seen Althouse on Ms. Lewis, I think she may have the clearest understanding of what's going on:
Lewis manifests the left-wing instinct for leveling. It's not that the proposed system would create interlacing supportive love for everybody. It's that it would rid us of the love billionaires — those privileged few who have selfishly acquired happy families for themselves.
Post a Comment