Nazzo Fast, Guida

Then we have this lunacy:

The goal is to “reimagine” the traditional family beyond fatherhood and motherhood with such roles being replaced, in a “more universal sense,” where children are not “property” of their parents, but “raised by society as a whole.” 

“I suppose that I’m called to the challenge of thinking about these really difficult questions of how those intimate spheres are affected by capitalism and how they are political.

“The left needs to get a little bit braver also at challenging the rhetoric of motherhood. Because a lot of the people who do mothering, I call them mother-ers to just ram home the point, that we can mother one another after the abolition of the family, this is what will hopefully be lifted up.

“To abolish the family is not to destroy relationships of care and nurturance, but on the contrary, to expand and proliferate them. Reflecting on the conditions of possibility for such universally xenofamilial — that is to say, comradely — kin relations … argues for utopia(nism) in feminist kinship studies.”

Nurturance?  Xenofamilial?  Seriously?

The author of this Marxist lunacy is named Sophie Lewis:


Nah, I’m kidding — that’s another Sophie Lewis altogether.  This is the expert on “feminist, trans and queer politics and philosophy”, who looks exactly as you’d suspect she would:

There’s never a ducking-stool at hand when you need one, is there?

I don’t know what Sophie #1’s opinion on child-rearing is, but I’ll take hers ahead of the Marxist’s, sight unseen.


  1. I did a quick google to err…research the first Sophie, but the hits came up all for the 2nd. She’s at least honest about her communism and the fact she doesn’t mind (others) killing – “Abortion involves killing and that’s OK”

    Seriously. She said that.

  2. We’ve been here before. Take a minute and think… this is the HILLARY! (Copyright, patent pending, close cover before striking,) It Takes a Village bullsh*t in a not-too-different wrapper.

  3. Ducking stool? Too much labor and material.
    Any lamppost or tree will do for flogging and hanging (in that order – methinks she’s unsalvageable)

  4. “… argues for utopia(nism) …”

    Any calls for utopia should be met with vigorous return fire. They *never* end well.

  5. As a grad with a History degree, pic # 2 is a representation of every chick I had to sit in class with. Ugh. When movies show some hot-chick archivist at a Museum, I can say bullshit with full experience.

    I hate to say this to all of us, but our children are already property of the state, de facto, if not de jure. Moo cow is just removing the veneer.

  6. Sigh.

    They’re not reimagining a darned thing.
    They are re-warming that which has been continuously rejected since antiquity.

    This premise that society has a greater claim on the children than the parents is deeply ancient:


    The contention of “children as property” is a strawman. Children are properly understood as “held in sacred trust”, which carries with it the heaviest of duties of care and accountability.

    Ultimately, that’s what collectivists run from: their own individual accountability, preferring to sublimate it in the collective.

  7. My socialist and other idiot friends always do the “reimagine” and “if people would only do….”. Well scooter, they don’t. It’s silly to expect everybody to suddenly become totally selfless and altruistic.

Comments are closed.