Monday, April 9, 2012

Familien er ikke en bevegelse

Kanskje er det et tegn på at familiebevegelsen er i ferd med å miste oppsluttning og at Santorum har gått for langt, selv om det er for tidlig å konkludere noe sikkert ennå, sier Hilde Løvddal. -
Her hører vi en sann modernist snakke. Familien har aldri vært en bevegelse, den har alltid vært fundamentet i alle kulturer. Det er tvert imot anti-familiebevegelsen som er en bevegelse innen nyere modernistisk historie.

Dette er ingen bevegelse!
Concerning the structure of the gens itself, Marx and Engels argued that it had been organized in such a manner so as to ensure the patrilineal passage of property from one generation to the next through partible male inheritance, primogeniture, or (more rarely) postremogeniture.[76] Families also functioned as the most basic unit of socioeconomic organization.[77] They remained fairly vague as to the specifics of what would replace the family in a postcapitalist society, but generally suggested that the form of the family would be abolished.[78] Luckily for those architects inspired by political Marxism (like Meyer, Nikolai Miliutin, and Teige), later theorists belonging to the movement made further contributions to the critique of the family and the inequality of the sexes. This critique was deepened by radical authors like August Bebel,[79] Clara Zetkin,[80] Rosa Luxemburg,[81] Vladimir Lenin, and Aleksandra Kollontai. “Millions upon millions of women in…families live (or, rather, exist),” wrote Lenin, “as ‘domestic slaves,’ striving to feed and clothe their family on pennies, at the cost of desperate daily effort and ‘saving’ on everything — except their own labor.”[82] For Kollontai, the most important aspects of the “woman question” in the modern age were the dissolution of the traditional family structure[83] and the achievement of economic independence.[84] Ultimately, she concluded that “women can become truly free and equal only in a world organized along new social and productive lines.”[85 - Ross Wolf
Mann og kvinne forenet i ekteskapet har alltid vært den minste komplementære enheten i alle kulturer gjennom alle tider, fram til modernistisk liberalisme fikk fotfeste.
For example: if the built environment has to spring from the connection between complementary elemental units, because that is how complex functional systems arise, then the same must be true of the social order. That conclusion strikes people today as outrageous. It would put us back—for example—to the union of man and woman in marriage as the basis of society. - James Kalb

No comments:

Post a Comment

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...