MhTAC announces family abolition reading group

Is our love finite? Must we only exchange care by compulsion?

On March 9, at 10 AM, outside the Prairie Cafe (with possible remote options), the tranarchists of Middleton Hills will descend with our unbridled, unconfined, unrestrained love and desire to discuss the seminal essay of Voltairine de Cleyre on the societal harms and personal violation of marriage and monogamy. We will also discuss a short piece of biographical material on Voltairine de Cleyre written by her (totally platonic, no feral love or connection whatsoever, very straight) friend Emma Goldman as context for De Cleyre's rhetoric and experiences.

Why is marriage a violation? It deeply restrains the resolution of interpersonal dynamics to something based on preserving a "product"--the nuptial vow--rather than the needs of people, and creates duties out of social relationships that could be a sustainment of an unsustainable joy. It encourages the patriarchal domination over birthing bodies, treating peoples' joyous, contradictory, and vulnerable experiences as mere means to reproduction. And finally, it forces us to love finitely, rather than sharing unfathomable queer desire however is consensual and being made the closer to those we love precisely by the fact that we are not alone in loving. We do not own each other. Let that release, shatter, and satisfy you.

If you love classical anarchafeminist theory, please join us! Here are links to our readings:
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/emma-goldman-voltairine-de-cleyre
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/voltairine-de-cleyre-they-who-ma...

There are 116 Comments

if it's a discussion you're after, maybe don't lay down a strict party line with the invitation?

MhTAC member here:) Anyone with any beliefs is welcome (barring bigotry and fascism of course). This reflects the views of the people who wrote the communique. We are, of course, decentralized and include a diversity of views.

your groups "diversity of views" is certainly not made clear in your post.

This criticism of marriage is painting with too broad a brush. What if you are queer married and polyamorous and practice free love? What if you do it without the state?
The classical critique of marriage applies to traditional bourgeois marriage and not liberatory conceptions.

You make a good point here—but how do you define marriage without the legal/statist aspect?

two or more persons who want a long-term relationship, perhaps also involving making babies.

marriage predates capitalism and the bourgeois by a millenia

i would expect a suburban critique (by that i mean boring, oversimplified, and lacking anything interesting as far as nuance or depth, not to mention viewing the world as if it were still confined by 1950s middle american ideals) from the suburbs.

not to mention, you sound very moralistic, even if your morality is reversed from convention.

Less and less people are getting married and having kids than ever before in all recorded history.. You're like 80 years too late with this boring milk-toast yawnfest.

To the "less people" comment—it's also true that less people are homophobic now than in the past. That doesn't mean homophobia isn't a problem. Please work on your logic.

Nobody said homophobia wasn't a "problem." The fact you make this ridiculous conflation of marriage (in a modern context) with homophobia says a lot about your groups ideology.

A far more interesting conversation I think would be to discuss what the social landscape might look like, 20-30 years from now, in a post-marriage society facing a collapse in the birthrate.

I already know what Baedan is.. If you think that random individuals in the world, (me for example), building their nuclear families, (which has nothing to do with you personally at all) is somehow "problematic" to your sphere of individual autonomy ... then I think you need to chill and maybe put down the nihilist propaganda texts that you and many others in the milieu tend to wave around like some kind of sacred scripture or text.

Normies building nuke families are not "random individuals", but disciplined dividuals structurally formatted by society. Let's not confuse a domesticated dog with a wolf, m'kay?

To be asking radical questions and pointing to the texts that are asking those is not sacralizing.

Why do you care what "normies" do in the privacy of their own homes and lives? Are you autonomous or not?

Aaaah, yeaaa... Why oh why do I care about daddies enjoying the privacy provided to them by Holy Property provided by Our Forefathers of Teh Constitution to they can abuse their kids and beat their wives, HUUUH!?

And as we all know, only Trans and non-White people are doing that! So why worry? /s

its really obvious you've been thru an abusive familial household situation and are projecting that onto everyone elses experience because that certainly hasn't been my experience.

Sorry your parents hurt you anon. Its not your fault.

The fact that someone's experiences of the nuclear family have been abusive does not mean they can't critique it. That's like saying that having lived under a tyrannical state means someone can't support the abolition of all states.

Nononono! Because someone had negative experiences of their nukular family this invalidates all critiques! Coz "personal bias" and and stuff... But any experience doesn't count! Only waht authoritarian knucklehead sez does.

Imagine comparing brutal, tyrannical dictatorships that rape/murder people en masse.. to living in the suburbs with your normie mom and normie dad.

What could you possibly have in common with people suffering under those hardships? Would you go up to someone who just had half their family blackbagged and taken away with..

"I TOTALLY get what you're going thru! My mom, the other day, used my deadname and MISGENDERED ME! God she's such a bitch! We are the same.."

your aggressive mis-reading indicates that you don't actually have a point here, and are only reacting to things going on in your head.
no one is saying "same as". the comparisons being made are to make ideas clearer, not to equalize them.

Someone's personal bad life experience resulting from the structure of the nuclear family empowers them to critique the nuclear family more, not less.

because it seems the opposite. You're taking your bad experience, generalizing it, and projecting it onto everyone else. You're not saying: "my mom and dad are/were shitty", you're saying, "EVERYONES mom and dad is an oppressor!"

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ashanti-alston-childhood-the-psy...

"Home (or family), church, school, peers, etc. have the function in common of causing the child or person to restrict and distort the living physical, intellectual and emotional expressions of that dynamic, charging energy of life, of Freedom within. It is done in the nice-sounding names of "civilization", "God," proper upbringing, Education, Manhood, Citizenship and the American Way.

Take the home. Just as we say that Prison is but a "microcosm" of society in general, so too is the Home. Home is that part of society which is first entrusted with the mission, or responsibility of molding us into what the Ruling Order has defined and instituted as acceptable. Those cultural forces converge upon each human being at the youngest of age. At such a period the person is helpless, defenseless as the "Spearhead" of these molding forces are the members of the family within the institution of the home. "

'Your parents are the first oppressors you encounter' is in fact bog standard anarchist thought. This essay is from 41 years ago.

(2/2) And lest you think this was a one off here's our good woman Goldman saying much the same in 1906:

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/emma-goldman-the-child-and-its-e...

"As soon as the first rays of consciousness illuminate the mind and heart of the child, it instinctively begins to compare its own personality with the personality of those about it. How many hard and cold stone cliffs meet its large wondering gaze? Soon enough it is confronted with the painful reality that it is here only to serve as inanimate matter for parents and guardians, whose authority alone gives it shape and form.

The terrible struggle of the thinking man and woman against political, social and moral conventions owes its origin to the family, where the child is ever compelled to battle against the internal and external use of force. The categorical imperatives: You shall! you must! this is right! that is wrong! this is true! that is false! shower like a violent rain upon the unsophisticated head of the young being and impress upon its sensibilities that it has to bow before the long established and hard notions of thoughts and emotions."

in the narrow sense of JUST the mom/dad and JUST the kid(s).

but certainly, people are coupling up and having children. That's not some ideology or social construct, that's just biology.

Those households may hold space for extended family members especially as economic circumstances make that the most viable option for a lot of people, but no, yeah...

wolves are a pack animal btw, and all packs, groups, herds, etc. form (and are formed) by their social norms. Hilarious that you'd use the wolf as some romantic individualist type who "doesnt EVER follow the ruuules man!" when nothing could be further from the truth.

and yeah, you do sacralize baedan.

third-person anon coming into this conversation to state the obvious fact that family structure & kinship does not equal the act of reproduction. communal family structures were the norm before the all-so western (or i suppose, just capitalist as it is spreading elsewhere) nuclear family structure. this does not mean that all family members were fucking each other to produce a kid. your claim that it is not ideology is also a little funny, considering that concepts like partible paternity have arisen in native societies without any colonial "external" influence.

marriage and children =/= nuclear family. travel south of the border and you'll see

A collapse in birthrate would be great! Our planet is massively overpopulated by the apex predator Homo Sapiens. At the same time gay or queer "marriage" is as ridiculous as "gays in the military"...

simple as that. no one's forcing you. even straight people aren't getting married. so whats the big deal? the so-called "social pressures" to do so are laughable in terms of how uncompelling they are at this point.

Research also shows that marriage is increasingly becoming a luxury item anyway.. something that only the richest of the rich engage in, bc it allows them to entrench their familial wealth and ensure their lineage remains strong and successful long after they're gone.

again, this whole line of critique feels stale because its responding to societal/cultural conditions that just don't apply anymore and so it just falls flat.

Also, re: collapsing birthrate, would probably be very bad, lol. I dont have time to explain the whole thing to you, so just go watch "children of men" for an idea of what that could look like. but you can basically expect to encounter a fuckton of poverty, violence and suffering across the board as it falls apart.

What do you mean you "don't have the time to explain it"? So why bring it up at all then, you lazy piece of shit?

How would the collapse of the diaper, milk formula, plastic toy and video game industries lead to "poverty, violence and suffering across the board"?

> Our planet is massively overpopulated by the apex parasite Homo Sapiens.

FTFY.

No need to fix anything, though you did (constructively) add a new dimension to my point: Homo Sapiens is BOTH the apex PREDATOR and the apex PARASITE.....In other words, a very ugly and untrustworthy species. They (we) kind of suck (objectively speaking, that is)!

Yes, and only the individualist Stirnerians are free of spooks and all the evil things they make sheeple do. WeeEee aRe tHe apEX specimens whose intellectual beauty makes us uniquely good humans worthy of adoration and gifts!

I still contend that yeah, despite some predatorial behavior (can't deny that creeps and cops are a thing), it'd be an insult to these magnificient predators, like the felines, eagles, orcas and sharks, to be deeming humans as "predators", in the same way as calling cops "pigs".

Parasites with predatorial inclinations is what I'd call humans, like viruses.

reactionary arguments for traditional marriage—almost entirely midwit views like 'our conceptual umwelt collapses without a traditional definition' or 'distorting the nuclear family unit whatsoever creates a violent shockwave'—are so embarrassingly impoverished.

if you thought that leftists overemphasizing the semiotic butterfly effects of "slurs" were ridiculous, wait until you hear a conservative attempt to explain the "justifications" behind any of their views. all one hears is a fear instinct screeching into the void. (and prognostication based on that fear instinct. like one of the posts in your thread here.) nuclear families were an attempt by the catholic church to atomize the population and in so doing, increase its own power, so i cheer on their demise.

Cool. So don't marry or have kids yourself. That should pretty much end your "oppression" by the "nuclear family", right? Why do you care so much about what other people choose to do with their lives? This is beginning to sound like Lenin, Black Lives Matter or the Party Platform of any other Marxist formation.

so, if you don't like it when men are violent towards their partners, then just don't get hit by your husband. that should pretty much end your "oppression" by "misogynists", right?

obviously not saying that marriage is the same as domestic violence, just pointing out your ridiculous reasoning.

You can VERY easily choose not to start a "nuclear family" of your own ( and if you're gay/queer or trans this shouldn't be difficult at all), whereas abused WOMEN often have a difficult time leaving the cycle of abuse once they are locked into it (psychologically, emotionally, financially, WITH KIDS, etc.), so why introduce obfuscation by equating the two scenarios? RUNAWAY from home and get a vascectomy and/ or get on the pill if you hate the nuclear family so much: what other people do need not concern you!

"ridiculous reasoning"?

your mirror must be broken.

also, why are people here conflating marriage with family. they are quite different.

yes, i'm not going to force the "normies" from doing what they love. it's just been funny to observe people saying "you'll want children some day!" to childless people becoming the alleged #1 threat to western civ over the span of 2 decades.

I HOPE childless couples become the new normies! The planet needs a break from the plague of humanity ( be that heteronormative, queer, trans or otherwise)!

That'd be cool but why not just abolishing normie cultures as a whole?

It's not about Humanity as much as it is about mass conformity being given a free pass to support all kinds of childish, shitty, careless and destructive behavior under the wing of society.

Like if you look at these manchilds driving their tuned death machines all the way to the river instead of just fucking walking, can you really blame it all on "the humanity"?

You know it's more complex.

Even if it's not a threat—why advocate for something that is not only disrespectful but leads to the governance of bodies? This is the kind of logic that leads to abortion bans and anti-trans legislation...and, yeah, also statism.

V.I. Lenin: "So long as the state exists, there is no freedom. When there is freedom, there will be no state."

You are confusing having a discussion and reading group on a topic with forcing other people to take a certain course of action. What other people do need not concern you.

I'm pretty sure the nuclear family pre-dates the Catholic Church...

''the nuclear family pre-dates the Catholic Church''

nope. nuclear family (as in two parents and kids under one roof and no one else) starts in the fifties. the FAMILY (parents, grandparents, kids, aunts, uncles, adopted children etc etc all living together) pre-dates the catholic church and is absolutely not exclusive to europe

Do you think people choose to live in the suburbs? A lot of our members live here due to anti-child ageism and the like. And as for 1950s middle american ideals—if you mean the ideals of the Mattachine Society and Daughters of Bilitis (both founded in the 50s) then maybe? But also...no.

Also: this is a communique. The point of a communique is to establish a point concisely, not to be a nuanced intellectual critique. If you'd like to have a more complex conversation—guess what. That's why we're having a reading group.

so then, if I take a devils advocate stance, oppose you on first principles and argue in favor of marriage/monogamy, would that automatically make me fall into the "fascism/bigotry" category or no?

To be honest, I'm just very skeptical as to the.. "diversity" of views, in your very homogenous-sounding, partyline-towing discussion group.

If you support marriage and monogamy, you're absolutely welcome. If you start shaming people in the group for being unmarried and nonmonogamous? That would be pretty asinine behavior.

well that's different then.

who would do that? pre-emptive over nothing.

What is "anti-child ageism" and how does it FORCE people to live in the suburbs?

I realize that there's Time Zone differences going on around the U.S. (and internationally), but could you EVENTUALLY try to explain what "anti-child ageism" is and how it forces and herds people (including "birthing bodies") into the suburbs and TRAPS them there in perpetuity? One fairly straightforward way to get out of undesirable circumstances like the suburbs (one that's worked for me numerous times) is to get a job and save money so that I can relocate....it's all very possible.

Anti-child ageism is the way autonomy is denied to youth—and those who are legally minors, and thus usually have to live with their nuclear families (due to both legal and social pressure). Many queer and trans teens in suburban areas would never choose to be there.

Whyyyy always only the "queer and trans"? Also tryin' not ta sound like a liberal at the same time?

The suburbs are cultural bastions of bland normative, car-based culture and its programming... there's more kids than you think that despise this place, hence why they been moving downtown or at the campus for decades. Suburb is where all the teenage punk runaways came from, for starters.

See... liberal critiques are avoiding from a deeper analysis of a problem. Likw "heteronormativity" is not, at least primarily, what makes the suburbs into an open-air prison for the kids. Some liberal suburbs got their LGBTQ citizenry these days. They drive the same cars and call the same police when some homeless guy sits in the park...

Not everyone is able to run away from home—especially given that kidnapping laws criminalize adults outside the nuclear family providing housing to minors. Please don't project your adult privilege onto everyone...

LMAO!!!

OHHH NOOOO! Such a PRIVILEGE to be slaving away at work, PAYING all my own fucking bills, rent, etc. not to mention all the other responsibilities I'm expected to uphold!

Maybe you should check your "teenager" privilege. You've probably got it a lot better than you think/are conveying on here.

Labor alienation and oppression can exist for people of all ages. Child labor is a very real problem in some places too—it's possible to experience both adult privilege and the harms of capitalism.

sorry, but EVERYONE CAN RUN AWAY FROM HOME!!!
it may be harder for some than others (not necessarily because they are queer or trans, in fact that might be in certain ways, these days, easier since their are many supportive people and groups out their to help, as i found when when i left home. and i completely cut off from my family).

stop being a bunch of victims. didn't anyone learn anything at bash back!

so, you do realize that so many of the cooler counter-cultures existed BECAUSE PEOPLE RAN AWAY FROM THE SUBURBS. For fuck sake, probably half of the kids in the late sixties who fled to the bay area and other hippie meccas were runaway teens from the suburbs. are you telling me that it was easier then to runaway then now. it is not, except for the fact that most teens are far more addicted to comfort and technology that they would never give up. most who play runaway for a little while probably still stay on their parents phone plan, not to mention the slew of services from the state, ngo's, leftist and "anarchist" "harm reductionists" they can use. anyway, quit whining about what is stopping you and do it. unless that is not what tranarchy is....

boomer ignores how life is harder for young people now than it was in teh 60s. news at 11.

hahaha

not a boomer, for one. (oh, forgot, that's the level of "discourse" people can must up these days.

in response to your stupid comment:

young people today are generally spoiled and pampered AS FUCK!!!
(at least compared to any previous generation)

it is also far "safer" to be whatever one wants than ever before.

is the world ending, yes, but you would never think so reading what seems to be most important to people online.

stop feeling sorry for yourself and go out there and LIVE!!!

Have you actually looked at the statistics regarding Gen-Z's outlook when it comes to career, home, family, health prospects or are you just talking about of your boomer ass about the greatest generation having to walk uphill both ways and that the kids these days are too soft?

again. not a boomer. sorry if you can't read. and what a stupid dis anyway.

and oh no, gen z won't live a middle class life!!!!

plus statistics only tell a small part of a story...

this entire line of thinking is beyond ridiculous, and certainly has nothing to do with anarchy.

well you ignore empirical evidence in favor of your emotional bias on a topic like a boomer, guess age is just a number, hey?

Because it's a queer anarchist collective.

You should probably have a well-thought-out, nuanced intellectual critique before you write and release a communique to the whole planet. Just 'sayin....

OK.... so the suburbs were FORCED upon you and you have no power to resist or reclaim control of your lives? Sounds like a Zoomer wrote this!

Do you think that people's age automatically makes them not worth listening to or organizing with? (For the record, it sounds like a hypermasculine dude-bro wrote a lot of these comments—but I'm still engaging with them.)

Imagine... being surrounded by cop-calling neighbors who got nothing better to do in their lives than care negatively about what you're doing of your own daily life, the people you hang out with, how you dress, etc.

True power of the police lies on the legal moralist state dogs of this world (totally not limited to White people, btw!), who'll just benevolently terrorize and snitch you to submit to their state religion.

"Do you think people choose to live in the suburbs? "
no, i think fema relocated people there. are you under house arrest?

"anti-child ageism " wow. new one every day.

"The point of a communique is to establish a point concisely," well, you have concisely pointed out that freedom is actually not your concern, but instead, a certain ideological stance.

well, why post a local reading group that most here cannot attend and find out how "nuanced" and "diverse" y'all are?

what's wrong with "sounding" moralistic?

amoralism is such a peak midwit position - particularly in its superficial and online form. the people who are perpetually morally outraged about morality should consider one second of reflection. amoralism degrades you into an unrefined moralist who's sphere of moral concern is reduced to primitive and tribalistic social positioning. you don't use anything like self-coherent moral reasoning to pick out your beliefs, you enslave yourself to random value fluctuations.

Why not just say biological women? Since they ARE the only humans who can give birth.

biological women as opposed to robotic ones? the whole point is that gender identity is not necessarily linked to your productive system. i would assume this is trivial and obvious. also not sure why you're asking me, i am not a part of this group/meeting/etc.

I don't think robotic women are any more capable of giving birth than trans women

I'm asking "you" because "you" choose to post a comment. Don't participate if you can't handle it! And yes, Voltarine de Cleye's essay "To Marry Is To Do Ill" is a great and worthwhile read, but I'm pretty sure that both she and Emma Goldman identified as WOMEN. I'm not sure how they would feel about post-modern, trans-humanist terms like "birthing bodies" (which are, frankly, ridiculous and indicative of First World economic privelege in their very creation).

you are extremely neurotic, and responded to my comment about amoralism with a question regarding the gender-neutral language used in the article. i request that you read my comment line by line before interacting further because i don't want you to blow a vein because of something that i did not even initiate.

What are you talking about? Emma Goldman and Voltarine de Cleyre were both "cis" and "hetero-normative". We should just pretend they never existed, shield our minds from their writings, and place all our trust in the Zoomers (who have SO MUCH life experience).

what are YOu talking about? how did a conversation about the normalcy and problems with nuclear families become a conversation about emma and voltairine being cis het?

you sound crazy, and not in a good way.

I kinda suspect the aformentioned comment was sarcastic and not intended to be taken literally. Maybe I'm wrong though

Definite oversimplification going on here. “Must” and “only” are clear indicators of a set-up false dichotomy, but just add “compulsion” to a scenario where that is not a given, and, well, the question is no longer a question, but the beginnings of an ideological position, something real life has no use for, in fact it hinders actual free, temporal, expression.

“Personal violation of marriage and monogamy.” Personal violation??? Who are you to declare that for everyone?

Ok, I do love Voltairine de Cleyre, but her perspective is hers, not something to fashion ideology from. I do believe she would have been the first to say this. And I love Baeden, but I think they would find your statement pretty stupid.

Then, more “it does this, rather than that” false dichotomies.

Marriage does not “forces us to love finitely, rather than sharing unfathomable queer desire however is consensual and being made the closer to those we love precisely by the fact that we are not alone in loving.” Those are unfortunate personal choices all sorts of people make in all kinds of contexts. Your so called critique seems to be a thinly veiled reasoning for what you want to do. So do it, who is stopping you?

Again, this is way to oversimplified for anything interesting to come from.

I was born into a horrifically abusive family, but have been a part of numerous wonderfully free and supportive one’s as well. I won’t even get started on the very amorphous and diverse types of families out there, but in a world devoid of much connection, a warm, nurturing, supportive, and loving family, in all of its forms, sounds better than a scene, identity group, or social club. “Family Abolition” is stupid. Redefine it for yourself.

Oh, and don’t project your person ideologies onto writers of the past. That’s just opportunistic and lazy.

unbridled, unconfined, unrestrained love and desire sounds great, but is this your real experience? i'm a tranarchist (22 fem NY) and the closest i've come to intimacy has been on discord :(

I am neurodivergent and, for this reason, experience universal love for people in general—it isn't necessarily about romance.

universal love for people in general... have you ever thought about becoming a christian?

Another exasperated anarch anon here, I'm appalled that you would make a suggestion like this unless you were being sarcastic, but you're not, because you don't even know that the X-tian merchant spook society created capitalism. Read mo books brah!

> because you don't even know that the X-tian merchant spook society created capitalism

Christianity was around for a millenia and a half before capitalism reared its ugly head, genius.

Hey brah, Jesus overturned tables and ran amok amongst the proto-capitalist merchants selling their overpriced goods on the temple entrance. Critically read the New Testament brah.

it’s ok, these folx will burn out quick, become social workers, start families of their own. then they will remember fondly when they knew everything.

Cults come in all shapes and sizes but they all exhibit many of the same patterns, some of which, I see reflected in a lot of this line of thinking...

namely: isolating you from your family.

Cults often employ this isolation tactic as a means of control and manipulation. There are several reasons for this. By isolating individuals from their families and friends, they can limit the influence of external perspectives and information that might challenge the cult's beliefs and practices.

We see this in the manner in which these "critiques" of The Family, as such, aim to dehumanize one's family members, portraying them as evil or unenlightened.

Of course, this logic extends to friendships outside the cult, too. These are the people who pejoratively get referred to as "normies", sometimes "muggles" (among the millenial crowd...)

The aim is to create a strong sense of dependency on the group and its leader(s). By cutting off ties to outside relationships, individuals become more reliant on the cult for emotional, social, and even financial support. This dependency makes it harder for members to leave the group.

I remember an excerpt from the documentary "When a Tree Falls" where Daniel McGowan mentions how he had had all this distance put between himself and his family during his activist days. Then the whole milieu cannibalized itself from the inside out and then, only then, did Daniel realize the true value of his family.

Another poster put it out there that a warm, loving, supportive family will ALWAYS be there for you, long after whatever shitty social scene, milieu or affinity group has disintegrated.

I experienced this for myself. I grew up thinking the anarchist community would forever be my tribe. I had scorned my family members, (wrongly) believing that they were "racist" or something as per some insane SJW standard... just for holding some basic normie opinions or for "not doing THE WORK". I was honestly a pretty fucking ridiculous person back then. Nowadays I'm tight with my family, and I'm very fortunate for that. It continues to blow my mind how shitty I was towards them all because of some stupid ideology and how they were still there for me when I eventually came to my senses and came back around.

I award you 100 points for missing the point, both for criticisms of the family, explanation of why cults do this and their end goal, but also for a lack of general reasoning skills. If your story is real, anon! and don't reply to me explaining its legitimacy. I don't care.

Just like you can't order to have a "warm, loving, supportive family will ALWAYS be there for you, long after whatever shitty social scene, milieu or affinity group has disintegrated". So if you had the chance to folding back to a supportive family, that's great. But there's a lot of anarchos who've left for a group or milieu due to their families being crap. You know, like imagine your family being a bunch of White supremacist child abusers doing meth...

I would bet everything I have that for every family of an anarcho that is geuinely abusive, there are at least 10 that are just fine. They're just being wrongfully and harshly judged by the insane standards of their seething, hyper-judgemental shithead kids who've gotten waaaaay too carried away by their own culty bullshit.

you uh ... looked in to psychology much? especially trauma theory?

the peer-reviewed, academic consensus does not appear to be "most nuclear families were/are totally chill and the kids are fine and everything's chill."

the engine of the social order creates and powers itself through the allocation of trauma, a result of its status as allocator of violence. the only way out is through, so learning/practicing skills of admitting and healing trauma is a key part to breaking the cycle of the engine, if this is possible at all.

sure, yeah, what you said

I prefer my snarky inference but if you want to draw people a map, do you!

anon has a nice supportive family. generalizes that to everyone else. news at 11.

Wtf.. now Countrapoints has an imitator? Thought the former was pretty excellent and sharp in her critique, especially of the neolib ID pols insanity, despite being pro-AOC.

having a family has saved my life so many times. without a deep network of very close people who care about me, i would be dead or in prison. not because they bailed me out or gave me money, but because i care about them and they care about me.

families can be great, or they can be really shitty, or anywhere in between. the family is also one the pillars of domination. It often times hinders a child's ability to develop their individuality and teaches them to be obedient to authority and to love thy nation.

i also wouldn't advise anyone with a loving family to burn that bridge, but you do you

i posted two lengthy comments yesterday, but they got taken down. i guess my voice has been silenced here by the anti-family folxs and their "allies".

ok, just leave this kids alone. at least they're reading books.

are they actually reading them or just googling what they are about and misunderstanding pulled quotes?

these days especially, cynicism is always the best bet.

audiences help create reality. a room can make someone's comment a joke or a dig or a threat.

cynicism is a fun game, but it's also fun to check in and share our own thoughts.

just sayin'

Add new comment