The movement to abolish the nuclear family
Exclusive: Patrice Lewis asks, who knew eating meals together is 'oppressive and racist'?
By Patrice LewisPublished February 28, 2020 at 7:12pm
A few weeks ago, our 24-year-old daughter saw a question on a forum and posed it to us: "Do you and Dad have any regrets about how you raised us?"
Startled, I replied. "No." Upon further reflection, my answer stands.
We raised our girls in a loving intact family that values faith and hard work.
We never had a lot of money, but made up for it by frugality and creativity.
Our girls grew up to become autonomous, responsible young women who are a credit to society.
No, we have no regrets whatsoever about how we raised our kids.
Yet to hear the feminists, atheists, LBGTQ activists and others on the extreme left side of things, apparently we did our daughters an enormous disservice by raising them in a nuclear family.
That's because the family unit is a patriarchal remnant that oppressed our girls by teaching them capitalism is good and faith is for everyone.
The family has been under attack at least since the 1960s, and with increasing hostility in the last few years.
TRENDING: CDC official helping spook Trump's economy with coronavirus fears is Rod Rosenstein's sister
One recent book blasts the notion of domestic tranquility centered around home cooking and family meals as a figment of "white, middle-class families" that had "at least one domestic servant," perhaps more. Translation:
Eating meals together as a family is oppressive and racist.
In 2017, a Google executive sparked a fierce backlash from employees by using the word "family" in a weekly, company-wide presentation.
Triggered people concluded the word "family" is "offensive, inappropriate, homophobic, and wrong."
In an internal memo, one employee wrote:
"The use of 'family' as a synonym for 'with children' has a long-standing association with deeply homophobic organizations.
This does not mean we should not use the word 'family' to refer to families, but it mean we must doggedly insist that family does not imply children."
Another employee wrote,
"It smacks of the 'family values' agenda by the right wing, which is absolutely homophobic by its very definition."
In Britain, a judge with an otherwise exemplary record was punished for saying that children do best with a mother and a father.
"He was told that his views about family life were 'discriminatory against same-sex couples' and was barred from sitting as a magistrate until he had received 'equality training.'"
Then there's the professor at Quinnipiac University who "recently made the startling claim that a belief in, and advocacy for, traditional marriage is effectively comparable to support for the violent white supremacist organization of the Ku Klux Klan," according to The College Fix.
This hatred of family culminated recently in an astoundingly stupid thesis entitled "Full Surrogacy Now:
Feminism Against Family" by a feminist piece of work named Sophie Lewis.
Raised – you guessed it – in a dysfunctional family, Lewis makes the extraordinary leap of logic that just because she doesn't like the notion of pregnancy, no one else should either.
She advocates for "surrogacy" – not necessarily in matters of gestation, but in abolishment of the nuclear family.
"That means caring for each other not in discrete private units (also known as nuclear households), but rather within larger systems of care that can provide us with the love and support we can't always get from blood relations – something Lewis knows all too well," summarizes Vice.
Consciously or unconsciously, this widespread aversion to the nuclear family comes directly from Marx and Engels in "The Communist Manifesto," which links families to capitalism:
"Abolition of the family! … On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based?
On capital, on private gain.
In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie.
But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution.
The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital."
Engels further urges in "Principles of Communism":
"What will be the influence of communist society on the family?
It will transform the relations between the sexes into a purely private matter which concerns only the persons involved and into which society has no occasion to intervene.
It can do this since it does away with private property and educates children on a communal basis, and in this way removes the two bases of traditional marriage
– the dependence rooted in private property, of the women on the man, and of the children on the parents."
Gee, where do you suppose Sophie Lewis came up with her "surrogacy" concept?
But what about the children?
Have any of these progressive luminaries thought about the impact their "new and improved" ideas might have on kids?
What the left won't admit is all their "solutions" to the biological inconvenience of reproduction are devastating to children.
Putting aside the poor souls murdered in utero, solutions such as those proposed by Sophie Lewis means children will lose their parents.
As child development expert Dr. Stanley Greenspan observes, a child's greatest fear is the loss of a primary relationship.
Familial love, apparently, has no place in the progressive heart.
"The feminist movement was never about supporting all women, just liberal women," notes Suzanne Venker in her excellent book "The Flipside of Feminism."
"It was not designed to level the playing field.
It was designed to rearrange society to make life more suitable to feminists."
Sophie Lewis and endless others who wants to abolish the nuclear family often feel this way because their own families were dysfunctional or abusive.
But their flaw is they attempt to turn their personal issues outward and blame society.
"It is very sad that these women had painful upbringings and were haunted by them throughout their lives – we do not mean to minimize it," writes Venker.
"But that doesn't mean – it can't mean – that society should be turned upside down to accommodate that pain." [Emphasis in original.]
"[T]he consequences of pulling men, women, and children apart; then, pitting them against each other, has proven nothing short of destructive on a colossal scale," notes Lionel Du Cane.
"Myriad problems have ensued – notwithstanding what may spell the wholesale collapse of Western society – since the family structure began crumbling."
No, my husband and I have no regrets whatever about how we raised our kids.
It's just a crying shame the Sophie Lewises of the world weren't as fortunate in how they were raised.
No comments:
Post a Comment