Comment on Let's goooooo

• chumbalumber@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  It’s a very interesting article. I broadly think its argument is sensible, but there’s a couple of places I’d offer some dissent:

  1. I think the idea of greater socialisation of child raising is framed as avoiding turning back the clock to a time when the nuclear family was stronger. I’d disagree with this framing of the suggestion; in many ways this is a return to tradition. Capitalism and the autonomy it represents has led to a loss of the kinds of community the author is describing. It has allowed the destruction of the ‘village’ in the idiom ‘it takes a village to raise a child’. There is now enough wealth for parents to leave the extended family and the local community to form their own, isolated nuclear family, which I personally think can be damaging for children’s socialisation.

  2. I think the author makes a good point about ‘gay’ and ‘lesbian’ as identies having the space to exist as subcultures with the greater autonomy afforded under capitalism, but I would take issue with the suggestion that queer identities are only able to exist as a result of capitalism. There are numerous examples of historical transgender and homosexual identities, not just behaviours (e.g. two-spirit people in Native American culture).

  Overall I think it’s an interesting narrative and a good point about the distinction between homosexual behaviour and desires, and queer identity.

  source
• chumbalumber@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Thanks – I’m familiar with some of Engels’ analysis on it, but will have a look at this. Seems interesting!

  source