Recently came across these tweets. Often I've seen folk argue that the nuclear family structure is inherently abusive and tied to capital, while others, including these tweets, argue that biological parents are the least likely to sexually abuse, unlike that of extended families/communal rearing. Are these stats any accurate at all? Discuss.
Where's the source from?
>>2774116This is anti-stepfamily, not pro-nuclear family. It doesn't mention single mothers who don't remarry.
>>2774120Right is from research by Martin Daly and Margo Wilson, considered influential in evolutionary psychology. As for right now, I don't know. Some textbook, i assume?
Single parents should just give on forming romantic relationships. Clearly it's problematic.
Non-sequitor xeet whose source isn't actually about the nuclear family.
Also, the problem is with the concept of the family itself, not its particular arrangement/configuration.
>>2774176Why though? and what should replace it?
The problem with family abolitionists is they think abolishing it would create some kind of secular heaven as if it will abolish "abuse" or power dynamics or wathever they suffered from at their parents hand.
The ones who want to abolish parent rights because they have a new model of society in mind without the delusion they're gonna stop Pain from existing are fine but it's 1% of them today.
>>2774200Historically most people lived in multigenerational households with strong community connections among neighbours that supplemented biological family.
>>2774176The tweet is also misrepresenting what the data actually says. The text above the graph refers to physical abuse, which includes sexual abuse but also just beatings and non-sexual violence. The poster then just treats these two as equivalent.
>>2774215It's not mostly about abuse, but the fact that it's the primary mechanic for class reproduction and capital hoarding.
>>2774225That's fine. But that's not what most family abolitionists are about today tbh.
>>2774217this doesn't do anything against abuse,the social shame from having to declare it + bystander effect kill anyone willing to speak up
You don't "abolish" the family you simply dilute it through stronger connections beyond direct family. Isolation breeds dependence.
>>2774297Neither does a nuclear family.
>>2774200"The Governm-err village should raise a child, so we can rape their minds and bodies" - Based Hillary "Hilldawg" Clinton
>>2774330>you simply diluteYou dont do anything, the productive forces that determine social relations do.
>>2774116>Nuclear family abolitionistsAdvocates of this make no sense from a materialist perspective. Same with acceleration"ists". It happens whether you want it or not. For capital all that is solid melts into air. If you want to make it happen or speed it up you need socio-economic-political power which means you need proletarian dictatorship over the means of production.
>>2774215>The problem with family abolitionists is they think Exactly. It is not consciousness that determines their social existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness.
>>2774116bluecheck bugman -> opinion discarded
>argue that the nuclear family structure is inherently abusive and tied to capitalHorror Vanguard podcast just did an episode on one of the most classic film about abusive family dynamics under capitalism, Wes Craven's The Hills Have Eyes (1977)
https://podtail.com/podcast/horror-vanguard/interlude-ii-the-hills-have-eyes-for-those-who-hav/>biological parents are the least likely to sexually abuse"We don't rape our farm animals, we merely extract value from trading them" its called animal husbandry for a reason
>>2774215>create some kind of secular heaven reactionary NPCs are like: "its impossible for us to imagine a world where men don't send emails to Jeffrey Epstein listing the ages of all of their children they are bringing to the "party", you are a crazy utopian cultist not a scientific materialist like my New Atheist PMC pedo debate partners"
>>2774116>the nuclear family structure is inherently abusivethose are called anarkiddies, radlibs, etc
stop associating with that kind of people, you already talk like them
>folk >>2774116the source underlined in biro (fucking disgusting savages) mentions physical abuse but nothing about sexual abuse?
all abortions are performed by the natural mother of children, so natural mothers harm more of their children than step parents
>>2774116my retort is that she's a trans woman who can't have children so any children she has will be adopted
>>2774638Your post is so high quality it made me horny
prison abolition, family abolition, currency abolition, religion abolition all staples of stable civilizations since the beginning of time, pretty much requirements to have a complex society…and yall have the nerve to claim you’re not utopians
>>2774944 (me)
she's also a three time Trump voter who loves to see children separated from their parents by ICE
oops flood
>>2774958I mean, the regime of that flag you got over there was pretty utopian (in their view) too, like getting rid of "racial" diversity, something that has existed since the beginning of time, colonizing Eastern Europe in a manner similar to the Anglos with America even though it was totally different circumstances, and thought that winning a two-front war was entirely possible even as late as '45, actively hindered technological development due to antisemitism, continued comitting mass atroceties even as it became clear that it made occupation difficult due to local resistance, etc. The whole concept of the third reich itself was pretty mythological and id say "utopian" like himmler litteraly belived in magic and ancient aryans lol
>>2774116Tenement hall + food court + laundromat + public education
>>2774116In the future people will be desexualized through genetic engineering and cybernetic implants so as to be more productive. Humans will be produced in factories to a common plan like anything else. This will of course be considered "outrageous" today, but will become necessary as the cost of social reproduction keeps rising beyond what normal couples can afford. Once upon a time the idea of public schools were considered outrageous also.
>>2774950no sex till after the revolution!
post made by revcel gang=
>>2775259>In the future people will be desexualized through genetic engineering and cybernetic implants so as to be more productiveyou wont even need all that, industry and computers are already sanding off dimorphism between sexes, not soy and plastic.
People don’t understand what “family abolition” is about. It’s not about literally tearing families apart, but about socialising care.
Think about it: Why are contards so fond of “family values” whilst pushing for austerity and cuts in social programs? It’s simple: Those two aren’t contradictory since it’s entirely coherent to support government cuts on healthcare and education and welfare whilst trying to privatise that via offshoring to the family. No more will care be given via state programs, as all that (plus education, healthcare, etc…) is off-loaded to the nuclear family.
People need to understand that, contrary to popular opinion, the nuclear family as an arrangement has only been a tradition in England as that kind of arrangement was normative since at least the 13th century, but elsewhere it was a novel thing brought forth by capitalism among other economic forces and material conditions that ended up favoring the nuclear family over generational households and communes.
Hence why the rich fucks of the likes of Elon wants the prole to breed but in dire poverty: To get cheap labor but sans the bargaining power of the workers as the proletariat gets replaced by new native workers instead of imported surplus labor. That is also why adult workers campaigned child labor while contards today want to bring it back in America: Child labor undercuts the adults’ wages, and also because capitalists need an underclass to astroturf the economic figures.
So, going back to the main question, what is “family abolition” really about? Simply put, instead of privatising care, it’s primarily about socialising that so that no more are individuals tied by blood relations, instead having the freedom to choose who they associate with and get care for under a socialist system where high-trust and community will be at the forefront of the vanguard.
Ofc this won’t dissolve the family as a general arrangement of social relations, but it will loosen it to the extent that the hierarchies of yore will gradually dissolve, hence the “abolition” part: Instead of having only your parents to care for you, you’ll have friends, extended family members, and neighbours to do that as well, like in a commune.
Ofc this has a major flaw: Namely, that even in the most collectivist industrialised societies the level of trust between individuals isn’t deep enough to make that functional. If you can’t trust your Neighbor to take care of your cat, for example, it’s questionable if you can trust said neighbour to take care of your offspring. I could only see that working in more decentralised social units like villages where everyone knows each other, and who can technically travel from one village to another via public transport.
Those are my two cents.
>EVERYONE QUICK LOOK AT WHAT THIS FUCKING BLUECHECK SAID!!!!
kill yourself
>>2775609I really don't care a single bit about what a blucheck have to say but sadly i'm an autistic chud plagued with moral OCD; thus, whenever I see something that supposedly implicates my political side that I can't just dismiss immediately (I'm saying this reluctantly because I don't believe in such a thing called "the left," but oh well), I usually take it deadly seriously and consult it with others.
>>2785892
Did you ever think that this was the result of a deliberately atomized and hyper-individualistic society? You understand that before capitalism, even even just a few decades ago, neighbourhoods and villages were more like extended families than the collections of isolated strangers they are today?
>>2775461Nicely put. Very good post.
>>2785892It's not necessarily expecting people to babysit children but rather trusting them to not rape, beat, verbally abuse etc children who are unsupervised. Our historical context has adults avoiding being seen next to minors in fear of being suspected, this is not conductive to a healthy society.
>Why would anyone actually work in a communal daycare or a babysitting program? You should probably forward this question to people who work at daycares.
>>2774116i suspect that there is a lot of rape in biological family that just goes under reported. my grandmother was raped by her own rather as a child, but he never went to jail for it and she never told anyone until her father was dead.
>>2774116I don't believe this source at all.
>>2774116
>step-parents>who are acting in the nuclear family structure>somehow this defends the nuclear familybeyond retarded OP
>>2788528You know there's already plenty of people who look after kids professionally right? Communal childrearing doesn't even sound that bad, I'd happily do that 1 day a month or whatever
>>2774116in fact this study proves that the nuclear family structure format (two parents with very little outside ties) is actually extremely fragile. Even assuming this is true.
>>2788528That type of person would probably not be doing much of the child raising anyways so it wouldn't matter too much what they say. At least I assume they wouldn't in a scenario where a child is being raised communally. Since they most likely won t be having kids they won't feel as obligated to be raising kids I imagine.
>>2788534>You know there's already plenty of people who look after kids professionally right? Yeah they’re called pedophiles
>>2788528<bumping this dogshit thread to quote something nobody is sayingFuck i hate our jannies.
Unique IPs: 31