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
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.