Scrolling through the all feed and saw this post and genuinely cannot tell of this is satire or not.
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
1) Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
2) No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
3) Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
4) No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
5) No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
Is “abolishing the nuclear family” actually in the program here? WTF
Certainly not in the sense that "we take away your children and raise them separated from you" but more in the sense of "it takes a village to raise a child". This can mean anything from extended family to patchwork to an active and engaged neighborhood to queer constellations of open relationship or poly or what ever. There is a quote from Thatcher "There is no such thing as society: there are individual men and women, and there are families."
Nuclear families, more than other forms of family and relating to each other, are isolating and making the people dependent on each other, most often making women financially dependent on men and men emotionally dependent on women. Abolishing the nuclear family doesn't mean that you can't live in a healthy monogamous relationship with a good connection to your kids. It means that you don't have to but can leave a toxic relationship and that your kids have other caregivers to complain about you and, if need, can leave. Or to live in other ways together that don't fit the model at all. To get back to Thatcher, it's not about taking away the little connection the individuals have but about strengthening the society, she denied exists.
I hope that helped. Sometimes I'm too much in my bubble to realize that implications aren't obvious. I specified "nuclear family" but I see that that's not enough. Thanks for pointing it out. Family Abolition is an interesting topic you can look deeper into if that interests you.
I am learning from these comments that some people have very strong negative associations with the term “nuclear family,” and equate it with not only the strict definition of “a family consisting of parents and children” but also rolling all the associations of cis heteronormativity and abusive marriages and pressure to confirm etc etc etc all rolled into just “nuclear family.” But yeah while I am aware of all those dimensions, that complex of oppressions and abuse has never been explicitly loaded straight into the term “nuclear family” for me in a way that I can recognize in the middle of a sentence.
I really think that the word "abolish" is causing problems of understanding here. For most people, "abolish" conjures up the word "abolition," as in the abolition of slavery. That was not a movement that made slavery optional for those who wanted it but kept it in place for those who still wanted to maintain the practice; it was emphatically a movement to make the very concept of slavery illegal (we could have a conversation about how successful it was in the context of the private prison complex, but that's a whole other can of fish).
When we talk about abolishing something, we generally aren't saying we're going to reduce it as an obligation or pay less attention to it; we mean we're going to do everything in our power to make it not exist anymore. If people assume you mean the latter when you actually mean the former, it's going to cause confusion and derail the entire conversation into a cul de sac of definition, rather than addressing the actual topic we want to address.
I just made a comment realizing that I was arguing with someone that just was using a hard definition of "abolish" in their mind. Though in the context it is clearly using the and more systems based definition.
(1) to end the observance or effect of (something, such as a law) (2) to completely do away with (something)
Honestly, it's an important thing to realize how reactionary thought is so good at connecting to emotional reactions that they truly redefine words or their contextual meanings. Every word becomes a "hard" definition if it is ever used by the left to explain structures. It becomes a hard definition that can invoke emotion.
In this case it comes from "Abolish the Police". Even some people on "the left" have adopted the right wing definition since. By either being an anarchist or a "no I don't mean abolish" liberal.
No, we mean abolish. We didn't stutter. We know what words mean and will not adopt the frame of the reactionaries.
I don't think it's reasonable to "be careful" with language. The reactionaries in society will pervert the definition of whatever word one attempts to use to invoke an emotional response to defend the current structures.
The correct thing to do is to educate those that are willing to ask "what do you mean by abolish"?
If we could have anarchist not reinforcing the reactionary definitions that would help as well... But that's a whole different story.
Do you think that this means "no one can have a family that is two cis gendered people of the opposite sex raising children!"
Or do you think its talking about the structures of society that force people into these gender roles and family structures to begin with?
Answer. It's the later one. Abolishing these structures, the incentives of and the dependencies they create, is part of abolishing patriarchy.
I don’t know what the fuck it means. I’m glad at least one of us seems to perfectly understand it as something benevolent, but it’s a pretty poor way to say it.
It's a 'classic' red team conspiracy theory, long lasting cause it's kiiiinda true. Just that it's corpos atomizing us across the board because more households buy more stuff and not the liberals/gays/commies doing it because satan told them to in a weed trance
uh wut
You should really look into the history of how the "nuclear family" was pushed by capitalist media of the 50s and 60s in an effort to normalize the suburban lifestyle in order to have a more exploitable populace and how that affected the breakdown of local community and intergenerational support structures.
The shift was heavily facilitated by the "white flight" phenomenon of the era as well and plays a role in institutionalized racism.
Trust me as an LGBT dude who came of age in the 90s, I’ve watched the whole conservative panic about “defend the family” for a long time. And of course women for centuries have been told they are a failure if they don’t marry and reproduce. The only miscommunication here is that the term “nuclear family” on its own does not communicate all those bad things. The term has a simple and objective definition so when people talk about it as the antichrist, with no qualification, that is confusing to me.
Was hoping to lightheartedly explain the "they want to abolish the nuclear family" thing, but don't think you're my audience and the other guy made it weird. Got a different question than "uh wut" or should we just move on?
My other question would be breaking your comment into clauses and asking you what you are talking about because it was unreadable to me.
Can you start with what you meant by “corpos atomizing us across the board?”
Big companies want people isolated and dependent on their services, rather than meeting each others needs directly. I do a lot of engine repair stuff, and in that context fuel is "atomized" into a fine mist that's less stable and more reactive than when it's in a cohesive puddle or droplet. If three generations share a kitchen, a population needs 1/3 the appliances it would if every 18 year old moved out and bought their own. In the course of maximizing profits the system isolates and divides us and is naturally opposed to core support systems like the "nuclear family". It's pretty silly to instead ascribe that opposition to the other side of a manufactured culture war that supposedly just hates your way of life
Okay I think I gotcha now. Honestly I thought you were trying to draw a literal analogy between nuclear/nucleus and atoms and I could not figure out what the message was.
Now I know you meant that commercial interests prefer separating and isolating people into as many individual households as possible to maximize consumption by making sharing and resource pooling impossible. Corpos atomizing us across the board.
Who is the “red team?”
The US two party system is often colloquially referred to as red vs blue. I'm sure you've seen coverage about "red states" or "blue cities" during election cycles. That was referencing the same reactionary impetus you refer to elsewhere in this thread to "defend the family" against a perceived other rather than the predatory corporations actually working to dissolve it. There's definitely some confusing cultural baggage around the term as each side has respectively glorified/demonized it, I do not blame you in the slightest for having to ask and doubt you'll get two identical responses
Thank you. I thought it might have somehow meant “leftists” or “communists.” “Red state” snaps right into place for me in a way “red team” did not.
So you’re saying that American conservatives have a longtime conspiracy theory about the family being under attack by gays whispering to Satan in a weed haze (this part I do understand).
But what’s actually going on is “corpos atomizing us.”
Are you saying that the corpo atomization is something that “red team” fears or is against?
I would think that the “nuclear family” is the conservative ideal and the corporate consumption powers that be are aligned with them because more, smaller families drive more of that individual consumption you mentioned.
So I was a little confused how “nuclear family” as a conservative conspiracy theory fits with corpo atomization in your view exactly.
First off thank you, I'm really enjoying bridging this generation gap. And satan's doing the whispering while his blue team minions smoke the devil's lettuce, but that's beside the point ;)
I don't think modern "red team" believes or is aware that social atomization is a byproduct of corporate greed for the most part. Distracting from that and providing a scapegoat is part of the utility of culture war and exactly what that conspiracy theory is meant to accomplish. A wealthy, intelligent, well-positioned conservative might be consciously aligned with the process, but dumb is a lot more common than evil. The conflict between social and economic values kinda has to be obscured for that ideology to function. They fear the result, but can blame the other (gay weed smoking atheists!) and remain all for the process that's actually responsible
It confuses things further that a few generations ago the "nuclear family" was widely recognized as a step towards atomization, but at this point things have progressed so far it's become a traditional ideal many feel nostalgia for. Grandma watching the kids and everyone working the farm together is long gone, and if you're a single parent or just living on your own it sure seems cohesive from here. It's a destructive template imposed on us, and whether they're after a return to the land or a soma pod above a nightclub I don't think it's what anyone who's thought things through really wants. Even if it is a step in the right direction at this point x(
Actually in the process of writing that last bit I had a thought: waaaay back when, conservatives almost certainly were against the push towards the nuclear family (and were right imo). It's only once we'd been isolated beyond that point that it could seem like something worth preserving or returning to
It's not. You are just taking the definition of "Nuclear Family" in a vacuum. It's like thinking "Abolish the Police" means that everyone that says that means they want anarchy, no state, and no form of law enforcement.
It's a general phrase that speaks to the current structures and their real material results.
Your "idea" of the police or the nuclear family may be their definition on paper. An armed law enforcement. Or a single man, single women having kids.
These are what they are defined as in a vacuum. They are not what they are in the context of state structures.
The police are a defense of the capitalist class. Their job is first and foremost to protect private property and ensure class structures are not threatened.
The Nuclear Family is a means of ensuring a women's material conditions and her children are dependent on a man for his labor. That same structure ensures men are given the advantage of control in that family structure; while keeping them having no power in their work or their labor.
These are what "leftist" are talking about when we are talking about abolishing these systems.
It's not about being benevolent. It's about being educated in class struggle and patriarchy.
Good try but no this was not in any way shape or form a clear way to say this. If you want to say “relive us from the pressure to conform to the tired and oppressive ideal of the nuclear family” then say that. Not “abolish the nuclear family,” which is nonsensical on its face because it’s physically impossible. Your connotations of this term are not to be confused with its denotation, and that’s the beginning and end of this. Anyway, I can tell you think this is super important but you’re not convincing me and I really don’t have any more fucks to give here so farewell.
I think you're having a problem with the word "Abolish". You might want to look at an actual dictionary.
Honestly, I feel like this happens a lot these days. There is a reason words in a dictionary have multiple definitions. But for some reason, today, people often just pick the most uncharitably definition and then just double down on their own misunderstanding.
Webster's definitions:
(1) to end the observance or effect of (something, such as a law) (2) to completely do away with (something)
You're picking the second definition and just saying that it is "nonsensical". I know we live in a world where words are quickly losing their meaning; and it is beneficial (in social media) to purposely portray or misunderstand what someone says. But you can at least realize you're doing it when it's been pointed out to you so clearly. I don't think you're doing it on purpose.
It's why I explained the systemic structures in my last comment. But, oddly, you seem to understand that and are just unfortunately having a problem with vocabulary.