There ARE other considerations in play, though it varies from situation to situation. Mostly, marginalized groups tend to look real negatively on it because it will inevitably involve their annihilation.
-
-
Replying to @loudpenitent @arthur_affect and
Like in practice a state run creche is not only just transposing the authority of the family to the State, it's going to inevitably annihilate all marginalized cultures other than the mainstream since so many traditional rituals & practices that transfer culture become impossible
2 replies 1 retweet 8 likes -
Yeah idk If family is indeed an inherently oppressive structure, which I certainly think it is, then "if you abolish families culture disappears" is, even if taken on its merits, not a sufficient argument to protect families in my mind
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
I mean I'll go one further then: if you remove family Christendom wins.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
I'll counter that: if you remove family Christianity decisively dies
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Nah, not even close. Not remotely. Christianity is the baseline of hegemonic culture. It will perpetuate itself simply by continuing to exist in the absence of external forces opposed to it. State run creches will just reflect it, imo.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @loudpenitent @Nymphomachy and
The creches of the State will just reinforce the Christian normativity of society, because the essential relationship between the child and their guardian is the same whether it's a state creche or a family: one of dependency, in a state of total dominance.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Where I land on this is ultimately here - no matter what, a child is going to have parent-like guardian figures, be they biological or civil servants. You can abolish the family but you can't rly abolish parenting as children are not born with the ability to fend for themselves.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @SamHaft @loudpenitent and
Maybe you can reduce the amount of harm a parent can do to a child by spreading out the responsibility of caring for them, but you're also as likely to, in doing so, grant part-time guardianship to an abuser.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Okay In the most reductive possible case If there are 20 dudes on the island and one of them is a rapist I actually do prefer the rapist be with all of the kids 5% of the time than have control over one of the kids 100% of the time
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes
I genuinely think that the former scenario is one where his damage will be much more limited and he has a much higher chance of being found out and stopped The latter case, the status quo, means he usually gets away with it completely That one kid becomes the Kid from Omelas
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.