albion
Registered
48
>>>".... there can be no form of family that is not predicated on
the subordination of women, a subordination that arises when
the role of sexual intercourse in reproduction has become established.
Due to the vagueries of fertility, it is never entirely certain that a
given act of intercourse will result in conception (on average, it takes
about 25 tries before pregnancy results). Although it is always
obvious who the mother is, it is not all that easy to determine
paternity in the absence of scientific testing. On the other
hand, there is rarely any doubt as to maternity. Without the
ability to corral woman's presumed profligacy, there is no <b
>reliable way of determining who is a legitmate member of the
self-described community, and thus there is no way of
legitimately denying resources to non-kin. This is why the
curbing of women
9;s sexuality is always a matter of concern for
the whole commu
nity.
>>From this point of view, it is easy to see why the
race-obssessed Nazis were rather fanatic on the matter of
famlily values. But it would be rather short-sighted to see
crude economic interests as the sole determinor of reactionary
interest in the primacy of family values. The fact is that an
attempt at social engineering was made in complete indifference
to the most cherished tenets encapsulated in the formula Kinder,
Kirche, Kuche (Children, Church, and Kitchen - the Nazi answer
for the woman question). Special camps were set up where
exemplary specimens of Aryan womanhood could be feted and
pampered while they bore out-of-wedlock babies sired by
exemplary specimens of Aryan
manhood. Why not handle the whole
matter of "racial purity" in this manner?
>>The answer to this question can be found in the secondary role
of the family, one that hist
orically has played a lesser role in
society at large. For the norms of any status quo to function,
it is absolutely
crucial that new humans be inculcated with
fundamentals of the ruling ideology at an early age. Bourgeois
social scientists refer to this process as "socialization" and
get all gushy about the nurturing efforts of moms. But let's be
clear about this. Children are too young to entertain concepts
of advanced of philosophy; the techniques of child-rearing in
all cultures typically amount to nothing less than brainwashing.
Values are implanted by non-rational means, by-passing the
intellect and working directly on the emotions at such a crude
level as to rendering them virtually immune from the kind of
rational examination which we learn t
o perform at a later stage
in life. Thus, our core values present themselves as eternal,
ahistoric givens - unassailable by logic, immutable, absolute.
Thus, the child who fails to accom
modate himself to his birth
family is an unnatural child, bad seed, and probably spawn of
the devil.
>>And the responsibility for the earliest imprinting
of cultural
values onto children falls typically upon the shoulders of the
woman who nurses the child in its first few months and years of
existence. When the Stalin regime began dismantling the
extensive system of state-run daycare centres, it is because
they had learned a lesson well known to reactionaries: if you
tie women to the home by burdening her with domestic
responsibilities, you have a ready-made conduit for the
conveyance of authoritarian values into every kitchen. And we
all know that the kitchen is the centre of the house, the centre
from which women conduct their ongoing battles to introd
uce a
little humaneness into this brutal world. It is a double burden
of purity that woman must bear: she must be sufficiently pure so
as to justify implantation with the male seed;
and she must be
morally pure enough to be entrusted with the care of his
children.
>>It is from mothers that children learn that the giver of life is
male, not female. The father brings home
the bacon, the father owns
(or leases from the landowner) the land you live on, the father owns
the roof that shelters you - it is to the father who owns you and not
to the mother who bore you that you owe your life. Second wave
feminists have recorded the transition in thinking, largely expressed
in religous thought, by which humanity convinced itself that life is
given only through the male, and that as the corollary, beneficiaries
have an absolute and divinely imposed duty to be gratefull, and to
perform services as an expression of love. Thus, primordialism
becomes t
he lynchpin upon which reaction hangs its unholy enterprise.
If the concept of the physical source of life can be immutably wedded
to the concept of soul by non-rational means, the g
iver of life gains
an unassailable authority, an authority upon which can be raised an
edifice of social power. Thus, the conveyers of the "will of the
ancestors" are able to institutionalize the first form of
authoritariansim, e
lder authoritariansim. The prime importance of the
gains of the Enlightenment were, as Marx put it, to "free mankind
from the concrete", i.e. from the cloying bonds of religion. "<<<<
http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/mar...31/msg00000.htm
>>>".... there can be no form of family that is not predicated on
the subordination of women, a subordination that arises when
the role of sexual intercourse in reproduction has become established.
Due to the vagueries of fertility, it is never entirely certain that a
given act of intercourse will result in conception (on average, it takes
about 25 tries before pregnancy results). Although it is always
obvious who the mother is, it is not all that easy to determine
paternity in the absence of scientific testing. On the other
hand, there is rarely any doubt as to maternity. Without the
ability to corral woman's presumed profligacy, there is no <b
>reliable way of determining who is a legitmate member of the
self-described community, and thus there is no way of
legitimately denying resources to non-kin. This is why the
curbing of women
9;s sexuality is always a matter of concern for
the whole commu
nity.
>>From this point of view, it is easy to see why the
race-obssessed Nazis were rather fanatic on the matter of
famlily values. But it would be rather short-sighted to see
crude economic interests as the sole determinor of reactionary
interest in the primacy of family values. The fact is that an
attempt at social engineering was made in complete indifference
to the most cherished tenets encapsulated in the formula Kinder,
Kirche, Kuche (Children, Church, and Kitchen - the Nazi answer
for the woman question). Special camps were set up where
exemplary specimens of Aryan womanhood could be feted and
pampered while they bore out-of-wedlock babies sired by
exemplary specimens of Aryan
manhood. Why not handle the whole
matter of "racial purity" in this manner?
>>The answer to this question can be found in the secondary role
of the family, one that hist
orically has played a lesser role in
society at large. For the norms of any status quo to function,
it is absolutely
crucial that new humans be inculcated with
fundamentals of the ruling ideology at an early age. Bourgeois
social scientists refer to this process as "socialization" and
get all gushy about the nurturing efforts of moms. But let's be
clear about this. Children are too young to entertain concepts
of advanced of philosophy; the techniques of child-rearing in
all cultures typically amount to nothing less than brainwashing.
Values are implanted by non-rational means, by-passing the
intellect and working directly on the emotions at such a crude
level as to rendering them virtually immune from the kind of
rational examination which we learn t
o perform at a later stage
in life. Thus, our core values present themselves as eternal,
ahistoric givens - unassailable by logic, immutable, absolute.
Thus, the child who fails to accom
modate himself to his birth
family is an unnatural child, bad seed, and probably spawn of
the devil.
>>And the responsibility for the earliest imprinting
of cultural
values onto children falls typically upon the shoulders of the
woman who nurses the child in its first few months and years of
existence. When the Stalin regime began dismantling the
extensive system of state-run daycare centres, it is because
they had learned a lesson well known to reactionaries: if you
tie women to the home by burdening her with domestic
responsibilities, you have a ready-made conduit for the
conveyance of authoritarian values into every kitchen. And we
all know that the kitchen is the centre of the house, the centre
from which women conduct their ongoing battles to introd
uce a
little humaneness into this brutal world. It is a double burden
of purity that woman must bear: she must be sufficiently pure so
as to justify implantation with the male seed;
and she must be
morally pure enough to be entrusted with the care of his
children.
>>It is from mothers that children learn that the giver of life is
male, not female. The father brings home
the bacon, the father owns
(or leases from the landowner) the land you live on, the father owns
the roof that shelters you - it is to the father who owns you and not
to the mother who bore you that you owe your life. Second wave
feminists have recorded the transition in thinking, largely expressed
in religous thought, by which humanity convinced itself that life is
given only through the male, and that as the corollary, beneficiaries
have an absolute and divinely imposed duty to be gratefull, and to
perform services as an expression of love. Thus, primordialism
becomes t
he lynchpin upon which reaction hangs its unholy enterprise.
If the concept of the physical source of life can be immutably wedded
to the concept of soul by non-rational means, the g
iver of life gains
an unassailable authority, an authority upon which can be raised an
edifice of social power. Thus, the conveyers of the "will of the
ancestors" are able to institutionalize the first form of
authoritariansim, e
lder authoritariansim. The prime importance of the
gains of the Enlightenment were, as Marx put it, to "free mankind
from the concrete", i.e. from the cloying bonds of religion. "<<<<
http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/mar...31/msg00000.htm
