We Can't Have a Feminist Future Without Abolishing the Family

LifeisTiresome

Well-known member

The feminist thinker Sophie Lewis has a radical proposal for what comes next.

Earlier that month, at a lecture in Lower Manhattan hosted by the arts journal e-flux, Lewis, who is 31, reflected on what some might see as an obvious irony to her crisscrossing the ocean to care for her ailing mother: Verso Books had just published her first book, Full Surrogacy Now, a polemic that calls for abolishing the family.

“2019, in addition to its more general geopolitical ghoulishness, has been a difficult one for this particular family abolitionist,” Lewis told the audience of about two dozen. “It's been surreal because the temporal coincidence of the Full Surrogacy launch with this unprecedented requirement for me—that I be at my closest bio-relative’s bedside—brought the stakes of my subject matter to life with almost unbearable intensity.”

The book, and its core premise, has gained widespread attention, from leftist publications like Jacobin and The Nation all the way to Fox News’s Tucker Carlson, who dedicated a June segment on his prime-time show to tearing it down. Recently, the columnist David Brooks declared in The Atlantic that the “nuclear family was a mistake.” The piece inspired a niche version of a popular Drake meme, with the singer shaking his head in disapproval at Brooks’ column in one frame, and smiling at Full Surrogacy Now in the next. (“I gave up after two minutes admittedly, but let it be known that I (incredulous) started reading it,” Lewis tweeted of the Atlantic piece. “Like....have we reached David Brooks?”)


When Lewis demands “full surrogacy now,” she isn’t talking about commercial surrogacy, or ”Surrogacy™,” as she puts it. Instead, she uses the surrogacy industry to build the argument that all gestation is work because of the immense physical and emotional labor it requires of those who do it. She often refers to pregnancy as an “extreme sport.”

If all forms of pregnancy count as work, we can take a clear-eyed look at our current working conditions: “It is a wonder we let fetuses inside us,” she says at the start of her book, citing the roughly 1,000 people in the United States who still die as a result of pregnancy and childbirth each year—mostly poor women and women of color. “This situation is social, not simply ‘natural.’ Things are like this for political and economic reasons: we made them this way.”

And so we can also make them different, Lewis argues. She imagines a future where the labor of making new human beings is shared among all of us, “mother” no longer being a natural category, but instead something we can choose.

At this point, “surrogacy” becomes somewhat metaphorical: Lewis isn’t asking that we all agree to physically gestate fetuses that aren’t biologically ours. Her radical proposition is that we practice “full surrogacy” by abolishing the 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.


Even those of us who might call our family situations relatively “happy” should sign onto this project of demolishing their essential structure, Lewis says. Nuclear households create the infrastructure for capitalism, passing wealth and property down family trees, concentrating it in the hands of the few at the top of our class hierarchy. Maintaining the traditional family structure over time has also meant exploiting people of color and disowning queer children.

Lewis isn’t concerned with incremental changes within our existing systems—Full Surrogacy Now, for example, doesn’t make any concrete policy proposals or spend time worrying over issues like the gender pay gap and paid family leave. She’s concerned with much bolder possibilities: In Lewis's utopian future, the family as we know it no longer exists. Everyone, regardless of gender, is a surrogate; we mother each other.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Again and again, Feminism shows itself to be the source of all things. Queer, the crumbling of families, trans, it all comes back to feminism.

Feminism is not about equality. It never has been or to be charitable, its long since stopped being about that. Its about female supremacy or bringing about communism or Marxism. Whatever the hell you want to call it.
 
@LifeisTiresome

It sounds to me that she wants a society like that of the Qunari from Dragon Age.

Abandon your kids so they can be raised by the state. Love between individuals is wasteful and reproduction should be done through a eugenics program wherein the state chooses who you're gonna purposely have a kid with.

No more private property either, let everything be in the hands of the state.

God, I feel she's gonna argue for making it so that men legally can't even look at something fanservicey and require them to wear chastity cages and have chips in their head to prevent them from having a single lewd thought due to them possibly becoming rapists or something
 

The feminist thinker Sophie Lewis has a radical proposal for what comes next.

Earlier that month, at a lecture in Lower Manhattan hosted by the arts journal e-flux, Lewis, who is 31, reflected on what some might see as an obvious irony to her crisscrossing the ocean to care for her ailing mother: Verso Books had just published her first book, Full Surrogacy Now, a polemic that calls for abolishing the family.

“2019, in addition to its more general geopolitical ghoulishness, has been a difficult one for this particular family abolitionist,” Lewis told the audience of about two dozen. “It's been surreal because the temporal coincidence of the Full Surrogacy launch with this unprecedented requirement for me—that I be at my closest bio-relative’s bedside—brought the stakes of my subject matter to life with almost unbearable intensity.”

The book, and its core premise, has gained widespread attention, from leftist publications like Jacobin and The Nation all the way to Fox News’s Tucker Carlson, who dedicated a June segment on his prime-time show to tearing it down. Recently, the columnist David Brooks declared in The Atlantic that the “nuclear family was a mistake.” The piece inspired a niche version of a popular Drake meme, with the singer shaking his head in disapproval at Brooks’ column in one frame, and smiling at Full Surrogacy Now in the next. (“I gave up after two minutes admittedly, but let it be known that I (incredulous) started reading it,” Lewis tweeted of the Atlantic piece. “Like....have we reached David Brooks?”)


When Lewis demands “full surrogacy now,” she isn’t talking about commercial surrogacy, or ”Surrogacy™,” as she puts it. Instead, she uses the surrogacy industry to build the argument that all gestation is work because of the immense physical and emotional labor it requires of those who do it. She often refers to pregnancy as an “extreme sport.”

If all forms of pregnancy count as work, we can take a clear-eyed look at our current working conditions: “It is a wonder we let fetuses inside us,” she says at the start of her book, citing the roughly 1,000 people in the United States who still die as a result of pregnancy and childbirth each year—mostly poor women and women of color. “This situation is social, not simply ‘natural.’ Things are like this for political and economic reasons: we made them this way.”

And so we can also make them different, Lewis argues. She imagines a future where the labor of making new human beings is shared among all of us, “mother” no longer being a natural category, but instead something we can choose.

At this point, “surrogacy” becomes somewhat metaphorical: Lewis isn’t asking that we all agree to physically gestate fetuses that aren’t biologically ours. Her radical proposition is that we practice “full surrogacy” by abolishing the 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.


Even those of us who might call our family situations relatively “happy” should sign onto this project of demolishing their essential structure, Lewis says. Nuclear households create the infrastructure for capitalism, passing wealth and property down family trees, concentrating it in the hands of the few at the top of our class hierarchy. Maintaining the traditional family structure over time has also meant exploiting people of color and disowning queer children.

Lewis isn’t concerned with incremental changes within our existing systems—Full Surrogacy Now, for example, doesn’t make any concrete policy proposals or spend time worrying over issues like the gender pay gap and paid family leave. She’s concerned with much bolder possibilities: In Lewis's utopian future, the family as we know it no longer exists. Everyone, regardless of gender, is a surrogate; we mother each other.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Again and again, Feminism shows itself to be the source of all things. Queer, the crumbling of families, trans, it all comes back to feminism.

Feminism is not about equality. It never has been or to be charitable, its long since stopped being about that. Its about female supremacy or bringing about communism or Marxism. Whatever the hell you want to call it.
I hope she gets the mental help that she needs ASAP.
 
This has disturbing shades of 'I didn't have a happy family, so nobody else can either.'

Forget about, you know, statistics that show that coming from a home without both parents is the single leading factor in doing poorly in life, especially becoming a criminal. The facts are nothing before the power of the need for MAXIMUM EQUALITY EXACTLY AS I DEFINE IT IN A GIVEN MOMENT AND WHIM.
 
This has disturbing shades of 'I didn't have a happy family, so nobody else can either.'

Possibly also projecting and going MY childhood wasn't horrible or left me emotionally needy

YOU don't NEED parents, hell YOU don't NEED to have a lover, what YOU really NEED is for the government to be YOUR parent as governments are all the solidification of an ideal REAL mega-family
 
Okay I'm going to say something extreme here....But where is the "radical" part of this argument in regards to the direction Feminism has been taken? Honestly seems like a possible logical conclusion to a philosophy that promotes the idea that common culture is imposed upon women and minorities to keep them subservient.

The family is the cornerstone of a person's childhood development, no matter how modern parents raise their kids its still going to be seen as a link to one's familial past. Small personal quirks and biases that is invisible to a person, starting beliefs, ect. And most importantly, they have the final say in what goes for a child's development, you can influence their decisions, not control it.

If you want to change a culture, the basic building blocks of that culture will need to go eventually, the only difference to me is that people like the author of these piece have just stumbled onto the next step earlier than others.
 
Okay I'm going to say something extreme here....But where is the "radical" part of this argument in regards to the direction Feminism has been taken? Honestly seems like a possible logical conclusion to a philosophy that promotes the idea that common culture is imposed upon women and minorities to keep them subservient.

The family is the cornerstone of a person's childhood development, no matter how modern parents raise their kids its still going to be seen as a link to one's familial past. Small personal quirks and biases that is invisible to a person, starting beliefs, ect. And most importantly, they have the final say in what goes for a child's development, you can influence their decisions, not control it.

If you want to change a culture, the basic building blocks of that culture will need to go eventually, the only difference to me is that people like the author of these piece have just stumbled onto the next step earlier than others.
Nothing you say is extreme. You are correct and its basically what I have been stating for a while now. But people still buy the feminism koolaid lies

I even said it here:

Again and again, Feminism shows itself to be the source of all things. Queer, the crumbling of families, trans, it all comes back to feminism.

Feminism is not about equality. It never has been or to be charitable, its long since stopped being about that. Its about female supremacy or bringing about communism or Marxism. Whatever the hell you want to call it.
 
Okay I'm going to say something extreme here....But where is the "radical" part of this argument in regards to the direction Feminism has been taken? Honestly seems like a possible logical conclusion to a philosophy that promotes the idea that common culture is imposed upon women and minorities to keep them subservient.

The family is the cornerstone of a person's childhood development, no matter how modern parents raise their kids its still going to be seen as a link to one's familial past. Small personal quirks and biases that is invisible to a person, starting beliefs, ect. And most importantly, they have the final say in what goes for a child's development, you can influence their decisions, not control it.

If you want to change a culture, the basic building blocks of that culture will need to go eventually, the only difference to me is that people like the author of these piece have just stumbled onto the next step earlier than others.

The thing is, you can't have a reasonably functional human society without functional families. That's how human psychology works. Every social revolutionary who wants to tear the family apart will either fail, or find themselves in a failed nation within a couple generations.
 
The thing is, you can't have a reasonably functional human society without functional families. That's how human psychology works. Every social revolutionary who wants to tear the family apart will either fail, or find themselves in a failed nation within a couple generations.

Thing is, they idealize totalitarianism and confuse communities and families with The State



It's like trying to bring about The Qun into reality
 
Why are people shocked by this? This has always been the objective of the feminist movement. Stated or unstated and its logical conclusion.

What I find more revealing is this woman's idea of a new society-basically Brave New World but with hugs.

Where children are born through public investment(presumably the government), and everyone "cares" for each other.

This is and has always been where feminism was heading.

Ever.

Since the first damn suffragettes in the 19th century. This also dovetails nicely with Marx's idea of abolishing the family as well.

Shit even Jacobin thinks this is beyond the pale,

"In recoiling against the Right’s continual invocation of the affective and emotional dimensions of family, there is a tendency on the Left to also reject the valuation of these aspects of life. And this is to their detriment. It is true that in the war against abortion rights, the Right mobilizes, often quite powerfully and successfully, the fundamental human emotions of love, compassion, and guilt. But Lewis’s approach embodies the flaws of a response that simply cedes the very ground to them. Any viable progressive vision of a postcapitalist future cannot look like an experiment in social engineering, but as a project that recognizes the ties, both within the family and without, that often underlie the everyday struggles of working people."

Basically uh "the family is absolutely necessary and should not be discarded and this will cede political and cultural ground to the conservatives if we accept that it should, we need it even in our socialist utopia".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The thing is, you can't have a reasonably functional human society without functional families. That's how human psychology works. Every social revolutionary who wants to tear the family apart will either fail, or find themselves in a failed nation within a couple generations.


I totally agree. But that won't stop people from arguing the impossible.
 
Yeah, its terrible, but its also feminists feministing. I think all I might be able to add is to beware overstating the instability of a terrible, anti-human system like this: for example, the terrible Mamluk system was maintained in Egypt for some 1,000 years. And the catholic Priesthood has mostly maintained itself without directly relying on family bonds.
 
Yeah, its terrible, but its also feminists feministing. I think all I might be able to add is to beware overstating the instability of a terrible, anti-human system like this: for example, the terrible Mamluk system was maintained in Egypt for some 1,000 years. And the catholic Priesthood has mostly maintained itself without directly relying on family bonds.
Those were specific organizations or sectors of society. Not all society entirely.
 
That happened though. Because priests often had mistresses(and often more than one-because the wealthier ones could support them), so some "nephew" of the wealthy town priest would end up replacing his "uncle".
 
I gotta say, I think many feminists are forgetting biological differences between men and women, the latter are even less fertile with age

And I don’t think many feminist women even if their fertility was put up to the decision of the state would even want or like or tolerate having to spend 9 months waiting for their child to be born
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top