Why do people cling so hard to the spook of the family? It's nothing more than the smallest unit of crime, originally formed to deprive others from the fruits of Earth, a birthright of every human, today it is still the scene of most abuse, bullying, exploitation and trauma. There's no reason why would we want to live in families instead of a more humane, communal form. In fact, it is not only obsolete, but outright harmful.
Why do people cling so hard to the spook of the family? It's nothing more than the smallest unit of crime...
Other urls found in this thread:
Kill all families
People don't like to raise other people's offspring, men in particular detest when they marry a single mom and have to raise another man's kids.
With very few exceptions the majority of people would rather adopt a puppy or a kitten than to give a home to a foster child.
A blood bond is vital in order for kids to receive the maximum affection and support they need.
Too bad lived experience says otherwise.
It's funny how liberals and reactionaries admire Plato and his Republic even though he advocated for children being raised communally and without segregation of sex.
Are there any interesting Marxist arguments against the family?
You mean soccer.
hi Zig Forums
> Dysfunctional families are worse than functional families.
What's your point?
That nontraditional family structures tend to be dysfunctional.
This thread is against family structures, not for "non-traditional" family structures.
Not having a family structure would create a dysfunctional environment harmful to children.
Go away american
You mean soccer.
Wong, and if you argue further I'll post a pic of a petanko sitting on someone's face
Further evidence that stirnertards grew up in abusive homes and project all their hatred for their situation onto everyone else
Big unqualified statements about a fixed and immutable human nature are my fetish, make more of them, please.
How many liberals (or people, for that matter) do you really think have read Plato's Republic? From what I recall the dissolution of the family and the state censorship are the two aspects of the Republic that get the most flack.
Literally the second paragraph
These aren't children being communally raised, these are children being raised by single mothers and their boyfriends. They're just shitty imitations of families that of course are gonna be worse than a more stable family. But the point is to get away from the family structure altogether.
In defense: there is nothing valuable or sacred about family in itself. Of course families are real, but familial love is just another idea. "Love your family" is just another commandment that only has value insofar as it has practicality. There's nothing absolute about it.
This is leftpol, OP. You won't find anything but appeals to family, nationalism, and 'traditionalism' in this shithole.
In general, though, you're absolutely correct.
Because social imprinting effects caused by instinctual adaptations that assume family-centric childrearing would make it extremely difficult for stable and healthy communities to persist in the presence of horny teenagers:
My partner and I have a child, what is to be done with it?
Not really buying it. Incest isn't really even important in nonmonogamous situations anyways, nor even in monogamous ones if you're willing to give it a pass every couple generations.
Hell, the one royal family of europe did incest-only nonstop for a couple thousand years, and only had slight problems.
Free-range the fucker and rely largely on family of choice and the people they actively seek out.
Read the article. It points out two problems stemming from the same cause. First, the Westermarck Effect causes blood unrelated children raised as quasi-siblings to feel sexually repelled from each other on reaching pubescence, which in the case of non-familial utopian communists such as Kibbutzim, caused them to flee the community in search of sex. Second, Genetic Sexual Attraction causes blood relative strangers to subconsciously seek each other out in dynamic cosmopolitan societies, creating either dejection or incest.
These two effects together, among others, act as an engine to demolish such non-familial projects among humans.
Sorry user, but most people had happy home lives.
Yeah communal raising of children works. In the same way that free sex does, it works, but should you do it?
Now I grew up in in an abusive family too but that doesn't mean I don't want to have kids of my own to raise out of fear I'll end up doing the same. First off most conditions that lead to an abusive childhood are from capitalism. 2nd the one's that aren't wouldn't be able to be helped anyway. A commune may not be able to calculate what a nutrition for a male child should be as opposed to a female child, and if you fail to convince all the members, then you get a whole generation of twinks. There's also nothing stopping a commune from deciding spanking is an acceptable form of punishment, or a child feeling that they are his parents and when he see's his two dad's arguing for him to feel uncomfortable. I'd argue being raised in a commune would only really lead someone to look different and maybe act more isolated.
There's such a thing as dividing communities you see, they can always just divide them between the guys and gals.
The two propositions aren't mutually exclusive though.
I don't even know if you guys are baiting or if you really are this fucking stupid.
The article shows how men don't like to raise another man's sperm, it isn't that they are dysfunctional because they are a family or trying to emulate a family it's that they are dysfunctional because human nature and it is correct to assume that it would be even worse in a commune since the men wouldn't few any obligation to the children at all.
Fucking burgers lol, they can't even play it and pretend to name it.
You mean soccer. Baka.
Your mom must be proud of you, kid.
Everything is obsolete and harmful in the land of transient trailer park codeine communes, everything except that notion that its people havent driven themselves deep enough into the void.
BUT WHAT ABOUT MUH HOOMAN NATURE???
Neither of those would be a problem in a free society.
Yes, human nature is actually a thing.
Only a fool would think that billions of years of evolutionary development wouldn't have an influence in behavior.
Curious how men spent billions of years evolving to only raise up "their own sperm" yet until very recently humans lived in matriarchies precisely because everyone fucked everyone else and the mother was the only biological parent that could be actually identified. Don't talk about evolution if everything you know about from the history of families is from church.
Yeah, nah, that's not how it used to be. Maybe in some few isolated native tribes in america and other far away places but for the majority of humanity that's not how the society was arranged.
Don't talk about evolution if everything you know about from the history of families comes from tumblr university.
But then Yakub created white people…
Different groups of people often had quite different social structures if we take modern(Read: post-neolithic) hunter-gathers to be representative.
Hunter-gatherers provide more support for the argument that human culture depends more on mutable, learned factors than on human nature.
Thats not to argue that human nature does not exist, but that its a smaller contribution to behavior than learned culture.
The delusion that people are entitled to have as many kids as they want and to also raise them is one of the most dangerous and persisting delusions in our society. Similarly, the delusion that every fetus has a right to life and that every embryo is perfect in and of itself is pushing immense amounts of preventable suffering on the world.
Picking designated breeders to produce a generation's offspring and then picking designated child-rearers to oversee their growth and development would be a great way to abolish classism and banish the spook of tradition from our world. Then we could raise the next generation of children to not obsess about becoming fathers or mothers or raising their own little clans of mini me's. If you look at the fundamentalist Christian cults and the Mormons it is entirely a death cult based around paternity/maternity. People think they can cheat death and stave off breakoffs by creating a bunch of tiny semi-clones that they can brainwash.
Too bad that stupid anarkiddies, let alone liberals, can't see this.
Curious that the penis head has the shape it has to scoop out other men's sperm
Natalism is a far-right ideology and it makes sense why when you think about it
By this he means send the kid innawoods and play hide the sausage with a semiautomatic
I guess a lot of Eastern Bloc countries it wasn't real communism because they had birth programs. Might as well throw Gaddafi under a bus too
Dubs of Bataille weirdness
its funny and sad when champagne socialists project their hatred across country lines and into America's backyard. you're not helping.
I ghostread that thing and it looks like modern cuntzi bullshit.
Don't you realize that the family unit, to an extent, is basically a small commune?
In China, families huddle together in farming communes. Some have been doing this sense ancient times.
Go to Laogai.
No, it does not show that. It does not even come close to making a sweeping statement about what men like and don't like, nor does it assert that the observed behavior has always been so and always will be so. You are reading your personal beliefs into it.
If you can show me your evidence for this immutable and unchangeable human nature I'll buy it. Until then just spouting more metaphysical quackery that only reveals your worldview.
Why don't anti-natalists just kill themselves and spare the rest of us their nihilistic whining?
Anti-natalists claim that it is better not to be born, not that it is cool to kill yourself once you have been already born. If you can't tell the difference between the two positions it is you who needs to kill themselves.
This is just dumbass feminist roastie talk. Raising a child and entering parenthood is the biggest decision anyone will make in their lives. Since your a feminist you see men and their labor as being at your disposable, so it doesn't occur to you how gross the idea that anyone should be okay with some else determining the time and circumstances of the most expensive and life changing endeavor they'll ever under take.
Men aren't going to want to raise other people's children for this very reason. And yes having your body validated by having off spring is another. It's hilarious how feminists will go around accusing men that want their own children of being misogynistic when what they are advocating will lead to a human genetic monoculture, except most women's genes will be passed on while most men's won't. We have a wide variety of genes for a reason, it's built in robustness to overcome unforeseen environmental changes in the future. Having everyone have children that mirror what was fashionably attractive at the time is beyond stupid.
Burger genocide when?
Let's be honest. If anyone deserved to get imperialized by the Americans, they were the Japanese.
Kill all Americans for the left is just kill all jews dog whistle for the right.
Someone is spooked by age of consent. Besides the only ones I despise are fag pedos. At least young supple women can make mothers.
Feminists deserve to for in their cat poop infested hell for all eternity.
Besides even Roo is spooked by essentialism.
Cause I want to raise my children, and not someone else’s children. I don’t want someone else raising my children.
Fuck you, I want to have Kids and you can’t stop me. Their’s nothing wrong with people having kids. The Reproduction of society is an inherently good thing.
You can't own people you fascist piece of shit
wtf is wrong with anarkiddies and why do they project their hatred of family onto everyone else?
What's up with normies thinking somebody belongs to them just because they pushed it out of their wombs?
What's up with normalfags telling me the community owns me because they're older. Fuck off fascist old man I can do whatever I want from birth and you can't tell me I can't.
This is really embarrassing even for /left
Are you completely unaware that anxieties about being the "raising" "fathering" or "paying for" non-genetic offspring are entirely and fully constructed from private ownership of the means of production?
In a communist society where work is structured from each according to their ability to each according to their need there would be no additional labor cost on the individual father for taking care of a child genetically theirs or otherwise because the resources would be distributed to the child according to his need as it is for all citizens.
The whole point of imagining a communal family society is that the freedom not to work for an employer according to his direction for profit would allow for the abundance of resources and free time that children would be provided for regardless of their familial connections and could be voluntarily raised by those who enjoy it and spend their days being taught the world by people whose interest it is to do so as freely chosen by each child.
Fuck off retard some of us like a little loyalty in our marriages.
I don't understand?
How does your child being able to freely associate with teachers and being fed, clothes and sheltered by the community make your wife fuck other people while you watch?
If you find another consenting adult who wants to remain in a monogamous christian marriage and have kids under a communist social living whats stopping you?
Or are you saying that you are such an unappealing partner that the social structure that enforces monogomy is your only hope of keeping anyone around? or you don't want your children to freely associate with others in the community because you want them to learn only what you teach them? because those are problems that you have to work out with yourself. You cant just control other people.
fuck off it's not my responsibility to help kids from a cheating partner. Advocating for the state to just blindly turn an eye to casual hookups and pay millions of tax dollars to take care of them because so many abandoned kids will come about is enforcing moral d.egeneracy and I have zero tolerance for that whether under capitalism or socialism or communism.
what the fuck? If you have a consenting monogamous partner why would they cheat on you? you think so little of your hypothetical partner that they would lie to you? or that they would be persuaded by policy or peer pressure?
freedom from is not enforcement of
do you even know what those words mean
Is it your responsibility under communism to contribute to society according to your ability? Because then your "paying" for kids(and adults!) that aren't yours or your partners? Kids and adults you might never meet.
One day Jesus will come down on earth and demand that we will kill our parents. We must all trust or we will remain mortal and weak.
I really love this utopic idea about socialism/communism that somehow there will always be people interested in a particular job and they will be competent in doing it.
What if nobody in the commune is interested in teaching children or if the only people whose interest is to do so are actually loons who believe in flat earth level dumbassery and they teach only a bunch of crazy bullshit to the kids?
Oh, I know, just offer some incentives so people take the job, well then you would have a problem where people would start only doing anything if you offer some more and more and sooner than later the whole system would collapse and revert back to capitalism LMAO.
That book is retarded. Engels simply concluded that because some dumb injuns lived in a communal matriarchy then everybody else would be able to live like them even tho other peoples are not dumb injuns.
The nuclear family and the concept of parents owning their children like property is unironically fascistic
I really love this ultracapitalistic idea that people would or even should do it if literally no one could be found for the former.
nice racism bro
No one owns their children. It’s just that they are responsible for their children two different concepts.
These people actually think familial bonds are spooks. Men are not happy out of family. They are destructive. Look around around you, self harm or harm to society, that's what you get. Don't give me the 'my sister raised a bastard and that means we all should' nonsense. We are talking millions of people not your gay aunt Sally's kid winning the piano competition.
Also sexuality is going to fly towards child fucking in these environments.
It would be worse in communally raised situations, more access to children, like the Church, like grooming gangs. Men without stable relationships and sexual frustrations with no father figure to obsess over their kid not getting fucked, is utter retardation. Not to mention females fucking kids already like it's going out of style. It would be an absolute shit show.
Unless woman are going to start fucking ugly men in socialist states, then these kids are going to be used as fleshlights without fathers on the prowl.
>Unless woman are going to start fucking ugly men in communist states (Ftfy)
I mean presumably not, only under anarchism is such a thing viable, but what makes you think pedophilia will increase?
Talk to parents about that. They seem to believe that their kids are little else than pets.
ok experienced parent.
Scarcity does not cause crime or violence. Poor people have existed for the longest time. Scarcity relative to your neighbour does. And that means men with no access to maturation causing problems which is something seen in everywhere. I said Family by the way, you said marriage,
Well, there is the plain fact that baby fuck is awww-rightttt.
read basic economics nigga
Read advanced economics.