The Family Unit

[AK]

What is inherently oppressive about the family unit? Anarchists and Marxists all seem to hate it as an independent unit, but I never understood exactly why. And what's the alternative; this communal living business? I never understood that, either. Why is it so much better?

Fire away.

[SeaSpeck]

As far as I can tell, it's not the unit that is oppressive, but the structure. The men coming before women, the father on top, children being ordered around, etc.

Now, I'm not apposed to the idea of families. But, I would like to see the relationship between the participants equaled out and people being more open to the idea that "it takes a village to raise a child" mentality.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

The family is exploited towards Capitalisms ends. I don't think the family is the problem by itself per se.

[F9]

As correctly above member said, its the structure the main to fault.Beside that, if you have a strong bond with your family, there is nothing reactionary about that, and if someone says anything like that s/he is an idiot.

[AnthArmo]

This probably has something to do with the extremely hierarchial nature of the traditional nuclear family. You have the husband on top, followed by the wife, then the kids.

From an Anarchist viewpoint, Hierarchy does nothing but oppress those at the bottom, and is something to be done away with.

From a Marxist viewpoint, I think Engels said something about the family being used as a means to perpetuate Capitalist ideas about Private Property and Religion to the next generation, ergo maintaining Class Society.

In terms of alternatives, you'd do well to check out the Israeli Kibbutzim.

[Adi Shankara]

In terms of alternatives, you'd do well to check out the Israeli Kibbutzim.

about that though: Kibbutz families are of the traditional family unit type; for the first 20 years or so, they did collective raising, but they found out it gave children attachment and emotional disturbances, so they quit it:


Judged strictly in terms of this ambition alone, collective education can be
regarded as a failure. The family as the basic social unit has not been abolished in
kibbutzim. On the contrary: familistic trends have become stronger than ever, and
kibbutz parents have reclaimed their rights to care for their own children.https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bitstream/1887/1477/1/168_144.pdf

[Adi Shankara]

Also, I read an interesting study about Kibbutz families, that, even though the entire society was unisex and work was assigned irregardless of gender, that women voluntarily returned to traditional sexual/gender roles:


When anthropologists Melford and Audrey Spiro examined the achievements of the kibbutzim in 1950, the experiment appeared to have been largely successful and their preconception of human nature as 'culturally relative' was held to be confirmed. However, in 1975 Melford Spiro returned to the kibbutz for a follow-up study and was surprised to discover that in the intervening quarter-century striking changes had occurred in the domain of marriage, family and sex-roles which 'all but undid the earlier revolution' (Spiro, 1979). The younger generation of women, although raised with unisex models (women driving tractors and men in domestic service occupations) and taught from early childhood that men and women are the same in nature, were now pressing to be allowed fulfilment in the role of mother. 'Women's rights' had taken on almost exactly the reverse meaning to that in our society. and also


The kibbutz government had become predominantly male, apparently because the women showed little interest in politics, and a traditional division of labour along sexual lines had become established. Men were doing most of the productive work, while women were doing mostly community and service work such as teaching, nursing and housekeeping. Marriage had reverted to its original form, with a full wedding ceremony and celebration, and public displays of attachment and 'ownership'. previously almost taboo, were now commonplace. The units of residence had changed from the group to the married couple, and couples were now claiming and gaining the 'right' to enjoy the company of their own children. Children slept with their own parents and spent a great deal more time with them. Women had also shown a return to traditional 'femininity' in terms of appearance, temperament (empathy and lack of assertiveness) and hobbies. 'In the one place where feminists thought their ideal existed, the feminine mystique is ripening as fast as the corn in the fields' (New York Times study, April 1976).

[9]

^wow, what complete and utter reactionary bullshit. Incidentally, the problem is not at all that gender roles ('women naturally "lack assertiveness" and like "housekeeping" and "show little interest in politics"', what fucking garbage) are "hardwired in our brains", but rather, that it is impossible to have little islands of voluntarist 'communism' in a capitalist world - least of all in the middle of a settler-colonialist state engaged in ethnic cleansing.

[Adi Shankara]

^wow, what complete and utter reactionary bullshit. Incidentally, the problem is not at all that gender roles ('women naturally "lack assertiveness" and like "housekeeping" and "show little interest in politics"', what fucking garbage) are "hardwired in our brains", but rather, that it is impossible to have little islands of voluntarist 'communism' in a capitalist world - least of all in the middle of a settler-colonialist state engaged in ethnic cleansing.

That wasn't me speaking, that was from an article I quoted. I don't remember when quoting articles meant you agreed with it, but okay.

Also, your response is a copout, and you know it. Rather than think critically and challenge it based on a factual basis, you simply dismiss it by calling it "reactionary", which shows you're attempting to dismiss the argument presented so as not having to answer it. what an intellectually dishonest shortcut.

Men and women are hardwired differently in our brains. it doesn't take a genius to figure that out. how and what ways, I don't claim or pretend to know (a biologist may though), but we are different.

what we can do though, is destroy the artificial stratification that subjects women unwillingly into positions they don't want to be in, and to allow them the same opportunities men are allowed in society...but that doesn't mean we should bullshit ourselves in "the name of communism". Men and women are biologically and emotionally different; mentally, I don't believe so, but emotionally and biologically, this has been proven with scientific evidence, and should be apparent to anyone with a pair of eyes.

[Adi Shankara]

Jesus, why is it just because I don't swallow every traditional argument as dogmatic, that I'm always being called "reactionary", "capitalist", etc.?

Why is it that, even as I say "WOMEN SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO WITH THEIR LIVES WHATEVER THEY WANT AND THEY SHOULD HAVE EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES AVAILABLE", that people twist it into saying I'm against women's rights? what the fuck?

[bcbm]

That wasn't me speaking, that was from an article I quoted. I don't remember when quoting articles meant you agreed with it, but okay.

women voluntarily returned to traditional sexual/gender roles, because, unsuprisingly, such matters are hardwired in our brains

sure sounds like agreeing with the article to me.

yes, men and women are physically different. that doesn't mean gender (social construction based on sex) is hardwired into our brains.

[Nwoye]

I don't think the family unit is inherently oppressive, just that it's important to understand how it exists alongside other Ideological State Apparatuses (the school system, religion, culture, etc), with the purpose of reproducing the necessary conditions for capitalist production.

[Adi Shankara]

sure sounds like agreeing with the article to me.

In both of those articles, what is there or what is there not to agree with? except for the last sentence in the second paragraph I posted, both authors posted factual statements of things that happened on kibbutz communes, not 'my opinion is..." Do you want me to deny that those things never happened, because they are politically incorrect?


yes, men and women are physically different. that doesn't mean gender (social construction based on sex) is hardwired into our brains.

that's what I was saying the entire time. differences are inherent; I admit, I phrased it wrong (and thus altered my sentence, which I do alot, since I still think in Russian and getting ideas across in English is somewhat difficult for me, even if I'm a bilingual native speaker), but at the same token, while social stratification isn't biologically inherent, the characteristics of women being less aggressive seem to be.

I know that I'll get flamed for saying "women seem to be less aggressive", but that's not women are less; just different from men. I believe if a woman wants to be aggressive and have a job as a politician, airforce pilot, etc. go right ahead; that's the hallmark of a good society is it's egalitarian treatment of people.

but at the same time...I don't see how saying "women are less aggressive than men". the fact that so many men compared to women are in prison should be proof of that enough as it is.

[bcbm]

In both of those articles, what is there or what is there not to agree with?
Men were doing most of the productive work, while women were doing mostly community and service work such as teaching, nursing and housekeeping.

because none of the women's activities are "productive." :rolleyes:


except for the last sentence in the second paragraph I posted, both authors posted factual statements of things that happened on kibbutz communes, not 'my opinion is..." Do you want me to deny that those things never happened, because they are politically incorrect?there is a difference between saying something happened and saying something happened because of biology.

[Adi Shankara]

because none of the women's activities are "productive." :rolleyes:

that's not what the author meant at all: He meant productive as is in a literal sense, as in actually producing and harvesting material goods or raw materials (farming, wood chopping, working in a factory, etc.). it's not saying a woman isn't productive--it's just saying it's she's not producing consumable material goods or harvesting raw materials. that's all. it was literal, from the tone of the article.


there is a difference between saying something happened and saying something happened because of biology.

I retracted my remark because it came out wrong, I'll admit and apologize for. however, their observations remains, that almost all of the kibbutz members returned to the traditional family unit voluntarily, and that is a factual statement. no one knows why, but if there was only unisex role models, and there was no patriarchy or matriarchy on the Kibbutz...why would that be?

I'm not going to pretend I even know, but I have guesses.

[Hexen]

The traditional family structure mirrors class society which it also mirrors slavery as well. The whole "hardwired into our brains" is just pure example of capitalist pseudoscience like "human nature" and such.

[Adi Shankara]

The traditional family structure mirrors class society which it also mirrors slavery as well. The whole "hardwired into our brains" is just pure example of capitalist pseudoscience like "human nature" and such.

I agree the traditional social family unit is mostly subjective as each culture has a different definition of it, and thus isn't hardwired in our brains (I acknowledged that what I was trying to say was phrased completely wrong)...

but what is interesting is why all the women and girls would embrace traditionally (in a western context) "feminine" roles in a unisex society. and that's what puzzles me.

there are alot of studies on gender and the context of sexuality; I could quote some studies for and against, but I'm too lazy right now :p

[AnthArmo]

^wow, what complete and utter reactionary bullshit. Incidentally, the problem is not at all that gender roles ('women naturally "lack assertiveness" and like "housekeeping" and "show little interest in politics"', what fucking garbage) are "hardwired in our brains", but rather, that it is impossible to have little islands of voluntarist 'communism' in a capitalist world - least of all in the middle of a settler-colonialist state engaged in ethnic cleansing.

This^

Also; it's worth noting that a large reason for why the Kibbutzim experiments "reverted" wasn't because of internal troubles. Rather, the communes as a whole couldn't compete with the external Capitalist market-place. This resulted in the communes coming to rely on government funding and on people seeking work outside the commune. I'm no expert, but this probably has something to do with the failiure of the Kibbutzim.

[Adi Shankara]

Rather, the communes as a whole couldn't compete with the external Capitalist market-place. This resulted in the communes coming to rely on government funding and on people seeking work outside the commune. I'm no expert, but this probably has something to do with the failiure of the Kibbutzim.

We'll never know why, as there hasn't been any studies on it. I have no clue why they didn't change social roles, but I always was under the impression kibbutzim were self contained...they aren't? :confused:

[AnthArmo]

We'll never know why, as there hasn't been any studies on it. I have no clue why they didn't change social roles, but I always was under the impression kibbutzim were self contained...they aren't? :confused:

Not anymore. Initially they were largely self-contained and very successful. However after the establishment of the Israeli state, a lot of the Communes started to lend a helping hand in fighting Israel's wars and were inundated by competition with Jewish immigrants.

Then there was a period in the 70s-80s where increasing industrilisation in most of Israel meant that the largely agrarian Communes simply couldn't survive on their own. The result was that many took second jobs outside the Commune and sent the money back to the rest of the community. This resulted in some members having further powers and priveledges, as the rest became dependent on them for further income.

Another thing supporting the whole "you can't have pockets of Communism in a Capitalist world". Many of the Youth's started to leave the Communes in their adulthoods. The reason? They wanted independence. Having grown up communally with everyone else, they viewed the Commune as a large, extended family and wanted to "move out". The result is an enourmous brain drain which stunted the Kibbutzim's economic growth.

[Hexen]

but what is interesting is why all the women and girls would embrace traditionally (in a western context) "feminine" roles in a unisex society. and that's what puzzles me.

Social Conditioning ever since childbirth has a lot to do with it. Also I sense a logical paradox saying if our society is "unisex" but somehow women are still following "feminine roles" then our society isn't truly unisex then as if nothing's really changed.

[9]

That wasn't me speaking, that was from an article I quoted. I don't remember when quoting articles meant you agreed with it, but okay.
I don't see what the relevance of this comment is. You posted quotes from an article - that is what I responded to. What is the problem?



Also, your response is a copout, and you know it. Rather than think critically and challenge it based on a factual basis, you simply dismiss it by calling it "reactionary", which shows you're attempting to dismiss the argument presented so as not having to answer it. what an intellectually dishonest shortcut.a. it is a bullshit, politically-motivated 'study'; if someone presented a study claiming to "prove" that blacks are inherently prone to criminality or Mexicans are inherently lazy or Jews are inherently greedy, I would dismiss it along the same lines.
b. the Kibbutzim exist within capitalism, not independently of it; they are not 'communist' societies, whatever some might have you believe. so it logically follows that they would obviously not be able to escape, for any extended length of time, the gender roles and norms which correspond to capitalism in particular and class society in general.

And of course, not only are the Kibbutzim not 'communist' societies, they have constituted a very important arm of the Zionist project, being strategically placed in outlying territory in order to extend the borders of the state and aid in expropriating a maximum amount of Palestinian land. And in fact, iirc, many of them were actually set up by a branch of the IDF.
So this idea that the 'failure' of an arm of the Zionist project to transcend class-based gender roles is indicative of anything at all about how "our brains are hardwired" is really what is lacking critical thinking here.

[9]

Also, @ the OP - the "family unit" should burn.

[Adi Shankara]

it is a bullshit, politically-motivated 'study'; if someone presented a study claiming to "prove" that blacks are inherently prone to criminality or Mexicans are inherently lazy or Jews are inherently greedy, I would dismiss it along the same lines.

So would I, which is why I said I don't necessarily agree with it, I mostly posted it as food for thought. I agreed with some points in the rest of the article that I didn't post (for example, I think it's stupid to make kids take unisex showers like the kibbutzim made them do)




So this idea that the 'failure' of an arm of the Zionist project to transcend class-based gender roles is indicative of anything at all about how "our brains are hardwired" is really what is lacking critical thinking here.

I admit, I phrased that wrong; What I meant to say was that women and men think differently due to differences in biology and hormones, which may explain why women abandoned those roles (though I admit I don't know) and men abandoned the roles they had. I never said this was factual or even that this is what I believe, I just meant to say that science has yet to rule out that possibility...we may know in the future when more studies are conducted. for now we don't.

on account of class based gender roles though, I'd agree with you 100%, those are social constructions that aren't natural and have little to do with biology, and thus can be seen as reactionary developments of culture.