Feminism and the family

[MooncupGoddess]

Thought I'd start a new thread on this as there have been several interesting comments in the Erin Pizzey thread, which has rather gone off course.

As far as I can see, accusations that 'feminists want to destroy the family' are generally right-wing arguments derived from a fear of losing male supremacy within the nuclear family unit, and of having light shone on the more unpleasant, controlling and sometimes abusive practices hidden within many family set-ups.

Personally I don't see what's so great about 'the family' per se - it's like any institution, some families are lovely, some are horrible, and all of them (in my experience) gain from their members having strong connections with people outside the family. I don't even know how to define family in the modern world, it covers such a multitude of set-ups and relationships.

I'm rambling now but do come and add your perspectives!

Completely agree with every word, Mooncup.

Well what I would like to see destroyed is the concept of the 'perfect' family being a man who owns a woman and some children and can do what he likes with them. Families can and should be any number of arrangements of adults working together to raise children, and how 'functional/dysfunctional' a family is should be assessed in terms of how well the family members treat one another, not how closely it conforms to heteromonogamous patriarchy-defined rules.

I think family should simply mean "a collection of people whose lives are closely interwoven and symbiotic to the benefit of all; quite often as an environment in which to raise children."

This would encompass single parents, same-sex partnerships, communes and friendship-based set-ups as well as the traditional nuclear and extended families.

totally agree with you all.

i am a single parent and while i very much feel like we are a family. i think others dont because i lack a man.

My definition of my family includes my mum, brother and SIL, DS' dad's parents, brother, SIL and niece, though we don't all live together. Myself, DS and his father are a 'family' and we all get on fine, there just isn't a couple-relationship going on with the parents and DS dad lives elsewhere. Yet the official verdict on us would be that, because of the lack of couple-relationship, the family is broken, which is bullshit.

Ah yes, that is a good definition sunshine, and I liked your long post on the other thread too. (Key quote: 'TBH if the family really is destroyed as a result of women expecting not to be raped and to expect equal help with children and domestic tasks, then the family is a shit institution.')

Having said that, my remaining family (brother and widowed father) doesn't really fit that definition, since our lives aren't closely interwoven any more, though we are all v. fond of each other. Maybe we just have to say that family is what we each want it to be, and that we're in no way entitled to judge whether what other people see as their family is a 'proper' family or not (let alone a 'broken' one, FFS).

SGB - that's why I didn't want to include the idea of living under one roof. My family includes my closest friends who do not live with me but are involved in my life daily. The same should apply to co-parents who no longer have a relationship with each other. I hate the idea that we all have to live together for the relationship to count.

I don't have many blood relatives any more, but like you Mooncup I still count my sister as family even though she lives on the other side of the world and so contact is limited. However, I would move heaven and earth to help her (and vice versa) if something happened that needed me to, which would link into the idea of beneficial to all, etc. Even just knowing that is nice.

I think what they mean is that feminists want to destroy the patriarchal nuclear family where the man sits at the top of it, and women and children are subject to him and what he wants. It's true, feminism does want to do that.

Yes, beneficial to all is a key criterion, and one that the MRA types don't seem particularly concerned with. Family. in whatever configuration, should involve a network of mutual love and support, freely given.

Yes it depends how you define family.

Family as small unit headed up by 'breadwinning' man, is a remarkably narrow definition and one that does need changing. Family in broad sense, let's call it the sunshineandbooks model is great.

When you reflect on it, the idea of putting everyone in these tiny units, separate from everyone else is pretty stupid. Well, stupid, or a neat trick to control women and their reproduction.

I'm with you Mooncup, and like your definition sunshine.

The meaning of "family" has been fluid for centuries, and varies across countries and cultures. The concept of the "nuclear family" headed by a man with his wife and requisite number of children as a "unit" is a relatively modern and Western capitalist concept in any case.

I wish to see complete equality between the sexes, in society, in the workplace and in the family.

But I really do balk at the idea that in order to achieve the later we have to resign so much to the state.

I am not a right winger. I am a feminist.

But I simply do not wish the state to have a large control over me and mine. I don't wish for that on a political level and frankly on a practical level no state has shown themselves to be any good at it to date.

wordfactory sorry if I'm being obtuse, but I'm not really sure what you're saying. Can you clarify please? TIA.

Hi wordfactory,

Why does achieving equality in the family involve resigning so much to the state? Obviously the state's intervention has been important in terms of law-making - the Married Women's Property Act comes to mind, and making marital rape illegal - but I'm not sure if that's what you're talking about?

Sorry I know I am new to the board but my "nuclear" family is happy and we all contribute. Both sets of parents have passed on and we are both only children. It really depends on who is in the family group. I would object if people wanted to change how my family works.

Welcome sausage. Fear not, no one wants to break up happy nuclear families. The point we're making is that all sorts of families can result in a happy environment for those contained within it, and we need to lose the assumption that the nuclear family is the only or best way of achieving this.

Why do you need this, over-analysed, definition of a family??? It's a family! It's just people who love each other... I feel sorry for some of you...

I have what looks like a nuclear family from the outside but DP thinks of his 'birth' family as his family rather than me and DCs.

I see lots of women getting discriminated against for being single parents. We need to get rid of this stigma. Women stay in bad relationships because society will say they have failed if they 'break up' the family.