3 ms·
The argument your side used to take was to attack the traditional family structure, calling it a force of oppression. I’m glad you’ve come around to accept that
by Helmet 9y ago
The argument your side used to take was to attack the traditional family structure, calling it a force of oppression. I’m glad you’ve come around to accept that the traditional family structure is vitally important - this is a basic truth that we old stodgy conservatives have known for a long time; it’s comforting to see a Marxist in our purview.
Now as for the nonsensical rant about capitalism, I’ve had that debate about a thousand times, so I don’t see the point in engaging again - it’s not like we’re going to change each other’s minds.
- omegaworks 9y ago> The argument your side used to take was to attack the traditional family structure, calling it a force of oppression. My side? Please elaborate. "Traditional family structure" has been used to browbeat same-sex parents, transgender people and anyone that lives a life not depicted in Norman Rockwell portraiture. In that way it has been politically weaponized to oppress the marginalized. Families remain powerful agents for wealth creation, economic as well as intellectual, social, and spiritual wealth. This does not mean we should structure society to make no resources available for a single mother; no one should be faced with the choice of staying with an abusive partner or losing her only means of providing for her children. It's nice to have a point of agreement, but unfortunate that you choose to keep your worldview narrow regarding our economic reality.