[Dagoth Ur]

It fits into their narrative of a culture to be defended from Liberalism. Otherwise they'd have to admit they're cultural liberals.

[KPres]

Nobody said marriage is a product of capitalism it's just another renovated wing of Private Property. Capitalism invented very little when it comes to controlling the people.

In what way is marriage a "renovated wing" of private property? What does that even mean? How have they "renovated" it? How do capitalists benefit from marriage? In fact, it seems on the face of it that marriage, and more specifically traditional gender roles, would be detrimental to the interests of a group of evil monopolistic overlords. After all, people living together = fewer households = less consumption, women at home = fewer workers = higher labor costs.

[The Immortal Goon]

Because the family is based upon marriage (or some form of it, even if it's "common law"). It stemmed, like virtually all of societal structure, from how we interact with the world—and how we interact with the world increasingly became entangled with how we understand property. Marriage itself was developed, over thousands of years, with the concept of property involved now.

...the domestication of animals and the breeding of herds had developed a hitherto unsuspected source of wealth and created entirely new social relations. Up to the lower stage of barbarism, permanent wealth had consisted almost solely of house, clothing, crude ornaments and the tools for obtaining and preparing food – boat, weapons, and domestic utensils of the simplest kind. Food had to be won afresh day by day. Now, with their herds of horses, camels, asses, cattle, sheep, goats, and pigs, the advancing pastoral peoples – the Semites on the Euphrates and the Tigris, and the Aryans in the Indian country of the Five Streams (Punjab), in the Ganges region, and in the steppes then much more abundantly watered of the Oxus and the Jaxartes – had acquired property which only needed supervision and the rudest care to reproduce itself in steadily increasing quantities and to supply the most abundant food in the form of milk and meat. All former means of procuring food now receded into the background; hunting, formerly a necessity, now became a luxury.

But to whom did this new wealth belong? Originally to the gens, without a doubt. Private property in herds must have already started at an early period, however. It is difficult to say whether the author of the so-called first book of Moses regarded the patriarch Abraham as the owner of his herds in his own right as head of a family community or by right of his position as actual hereditary head of a gens. What is certain is that we must not think of him as a property owner in the modern sense of the word. And it is also certain that at the threshold of authentic history we already find the herds everywhere separately owned by heads of families, as are the artistic products of barbarism – metal implements, luxury articles and, finally, the human cattle – the slaves.

For now slavery had also been invented. To the barbarian of the lower stage, a slave was valueless. Hence the treatment of defeated enemies by the American Indians was quite different from that at a higher stage. The men were killed or adopted as brothers into the tribe of the victors; the women were taken as wives or otherwise adopted with their surviving children. At this stage human labor-power still does not produce any considerable surplus over and above its maintenance costs. That was no longer the case after the introduction of cattle-breeding, metalworking, weaving and, lastly, agriculture. just as the wives whom it had formerly been so easy to obtain had now acquired an exchange value and were bought, so also with the forces of labor, particularly since the herds had definitely become family possessions. The family did not multiply so rapidly as the cattle. More people were needed to look after them; for this purpose use could be made of the enemies captured in war, who could also be bred just as easily as the cattle themselves.

Once it had passed into the private possession of families and there rapidly begun to augment, this wealth dealt a severe blow to the society founded on pairing marriage and the matriarchal gens. Pairing marriage had brought a new element into the family. By the side of the natural mother of the child it placed its natural and attested father, with a better warrant of paternity, probably, than that of many a “father” today. According to the division of labor within the family at that time, it was the man’s part to obtain food and the instruments of labor necessary for the purpose. He therefore also owned the instruments of labor, and in the event of husband and wife separating, he took them with him, just as she retained her household goods. Therefore, according to the social custom of the time, the man was also the owner of the new source of subsistence, the cattle, and later of the new instruments of labor, the slaves. But according to the custom of the same society, his children could not inherit from him. For as regards inheritance, the position was as follows:

At first, according to mother-right – so long, therefore, as descent was reckoned only in the female line – and according to the original custom of inheritance within the gens, the gentile relatives inherited from a deceased fellow member of their gens. His property had to remain within the gens. His effects being insignificant, they probably always passed in practice to his nearest gentile relations – that is, to his blood relations on the mother's side. The children of the dead man, however, did not belong to his gens, but to that of their mother; it was from her that they inherited, at first conjointly with her other blood relations, later perhaps with rights of priority; they could not inherit from their father, because they did not belong to his gens, within which his property had to remain. When the owner of the herds died, therefore, his herds would go first to his brothers and sisters and to his sister’s children, or to the issue of his mother’s sisters. But his own children were disinherited.

Thus, on the one hand, in proportion as wealth increased, it made the man’s position in the family more important than the woman’s, and on the other hand created an impulse to exploit this strengthened position in order to overthrow, in favor of his children, the traditional order of inheritance. This, however, was impossible so long as descent was reckoned according to mother-right. Mother-right, therefore, had to be overthrown, and overthrown it was. This was by no means so difficult as it looks to us today. For this revolution – one of the most decisive ever experienced by humanity – could take place without disturbing a single one of the living members of a gens. All could remain as they were. A simple decree sufficed that in the future the offspring of the male members should remain within the gens, but that of the female should be excluded by being transferred to the gens of their father. The reckoning of descent in the female line and the matriarchal law of inheritance were thereby overthrown, and the male line of descent and the paternal law of inheritance were substituted for them. As to how and when this revolution took place among civilized peoples, we have no knowledge. It falls entirely within prehistoric times. But that it did take place is more than sufficiently proved by the abundant traces of mother-right which have been collected, particularly by Bachofen. How easily it is accomplished can be seen in a whole series of American Indian tribes, where it has only recently taken place and is still taking place under the influence, partly of increasing wealth and a changed mode of life (transference from forest to prairie), and partly of the moral pressure of civilization and missionaries. Of eight Missouri tribes, six observe the male line of descent and inheritance, two still observe the female. Among the Shawnees, Miamis and Delawares the custom has grown up of giving the children a gentile name of their father's gens in order to transfer them into it, thus enabling them to inherit from him.

Since capitalists believe and maintain private property, they merely reinvented an old structure created to deal with private property. The only tangible benefit from marriage, that has existed in societies long before Jesus of Nazareth was known, is to enforce property.

[mum]

marriage and family (and religion for that matter) are somewhat incompatible with socialism/communism etc.
It is necessary for socialism that people look to the state for ultimate security and guidance, this brainwashing maintains the power of the state and helps to prevent people from seeing the state for what it really is (evil and coercive)

[The Immortal Goon]

marriage and family (and religion for that matter) are somewhat incompatible with socialism/communism etc.

This is not true, as has been touched upon.

It is necessary for socialism that people look to the state for ultimate security and guidance, this brainwashing maintains the power of the state and helps to prevent people from seeing the state for what it really is (evil and coercive)

Do you expect me to be trolled by this nonsense? If you're honestly looking for answers, perhaps you should look here for results.

[Rei Murasame]

It is necessary for socialism that people look to the state for ultimate security and guidance, this brainwashing maintains the power of the state and helps to prevent people from seeing the state for what it really is (evil and coercive)

Mirror time: It is necessary for capitalism that people look to the state or a state-like entity to endorse the nuclear family as the ultimate security and guidance, this brainwashing maintains the power of the capitalist state while offshoring all social responsibilities onto little self-contained units that compete blindly against each other. This causes people to be too pre-occupied with that to see the capitalist state or state-like entity for what it is really is - degenerate and coercive.

[mum]

This is not true, as has been touched upon.

Yes it is.

I wasn't looking for answers in this case, I was providing them.

Rei as an an-cap I totally oppose the state. I actually agree with you if you apply you point of view to today's crony-capitalist, interventionist, big government disaster.
However in a pure capitalist (anarcho-capitalist or even minarchist) society your point is clearly invalid.

[Rei Murasame]

No, in a minarchist or anarcho-capitalist society my point would become even more relevant, because the economic pressures ushered into being by the minarchist state or anarcho-capitalist company-operated state-like entities would basically be to retrench the entire nuclear family even more firmly along with even a re-manifestation of Victorian bullshit so-called values.

The reason why is obvious, and I know that you know it, because you are a woman, so I shouldn't have to explain this step-by-step, you know what I am talking about.

[mum]

As you should already know the " anarcho-capitalist company-operated state-like entities" don't actually exist.
You point is really silly, sorry.

because you are a woman

am I ?

[Rei Murasame]

As you should already know the " anarcho-capitalist company-operated state-like entities" don't actually exist.

Really? Who controls the allocation of wealth in an anarcho-capitalist society and who controls the borrowing and lending preferences? Who would operate social institutions?

What do you think a state-like entity is?

am I ?

Well, if you're male then I'd have to go the extra effort to demonstrate to you what would happen. Explain to me what you imagine would become of women in an anarcho-capitalist society?

[mum]

Really? Who controls the allocation of wealth in an anarcho-capitalist society

consumers

and who controls the borrowing and lending preferences?

consumers

Who would operate social institutions?

consumers

What do you think a state-like entity is?

Definitely NOT consumers. Definitely not businesses. Definitely not locally owned non-profits that look after local infrastructure.

There isn't any...

Well, if you're male then I'd have to go the extra effort to demonstrate to you what would happen. Explain to me what you imagine would become of women in an anarcho-capitalist society?

The same as today really. Some will work, some will look after kids, some will do both.
Many more that today will become small business owners/operators.

[Rei Murasame]

I don't believe anything you've written in the above post, not even one thing.

However, since this thread was not directed at me to begin with, I'll step aside at this point and let the Marxists pick up the baton from this point, since I'm pretty sure that they don't believe it either, and are dying to tell you why they don't.

And they can probably do it more eloquently than me.

[mum]

Your belief or lack thereof has no effect on the truth of what I have written.

[Rei Murasame]

Well, I don't believe that any of it is true, but I can't bring myself to explain the development of capitalism yet again, along with having to explain what a state-like entity is. I'd be here all night, so that's why I'm baton-passing to the Marxists.

Also, the fact that all you can offer me is that for women it would at best be 'the same as today really' (which sucks, by the way), doesn't make me want to get on board with your idea at all, particularly since I am sure that it would actually be worse than it is today - it's just obvious. This is why anarcho-capitalism will always be completely full of men, you lot haven't actually thought this through at all.

[mum]

But your explanations are incorrect, so please don't do it again.
Where do you live? Women in my country are treated just as equally as men.
More men are at higher positions in the corporate world, but that is just because generally men don't have to cease their accumulation of skills and experience to have kids.
Women that are in high positions generally don't have kids.. and they also earn the same as men (at the same levels)

[Rei Murasame]

Women in my country are treated just as equally as men.

What magical country are you living in?

More men are at higher positions in the corporate world

That's not actually what I am talking about, I am talking about women overall.

generally men don't have to cease their accumulation of skills and experience to have kids.

And why do women have to, and why is that permitted to hamper women? You see where I am going with this?

Women that are in high positions generally don't have kids..

So in other words you are describing a society that favours you if you never use your womb at all? You see where I am going with this?

[mum]

And why do women have to, and why is that permitted to hamper women? You see where I am going with this?

So in other words you are describing a society that favours you if you never use your womb at all? You see where I am going with this?

Yes I do, and frankly I think you are being ridiculous. But you are a socialist (or some derivative, far left, far right its all the same effectively) so it's not unexpected.

permitted ?? are you for real? your entire premise is suggesting that authority wrestles with the natural order of things to fit into some ridiculous idea that people are perfectly uniform and equal. Yes women have to have the kids, and look after them (I hope) If you are away from your job for 3-4 years having and bringing up kids then it is expected that you will miss out on skills and experience otherwise gained from your career.
Its not like we can just upload all those skills and experience into a woman's brain "Matrix style". If we could then we wouldn't be having this conversation.

You (and all the other pro-central control people) constantly want to move and manipulate and adjust and fine tune society to your specific view of fairness/equality/quality/something. Can't you see how unnatural this is ? (I know for sure you don't see how this always has and always will end in disaster and abuse of power)

[Rei Murasame]

Yes I do, and frankly I think you are being ridiculous.

Well I also think that you are being ridiculous.

permitted ?? are you for real? your entire premise is suggesting that authority wrestles with the natural order of things to fit into some ridiculous idea that people are perfectly uniform and equal.

No, I am saying the opposite. Women are not equal to men. Simply because we have wombs and as such we should be treated differently.

Yes women have to have the kids, and look after them (I hope) If you are away from your job for 3-4 years having and bringing up kids then it is expected that you will miss out on skills and experience otherwise gained from your career.

I completely agree, and that why women should not have to be away from their jobs while having children. You didn't think of that, did you? There are numerous social programmes and workplace-compromises that can be made to remove that problem, if anyone actually gave a damn and was willing to fund it.

But you see, now you will claim that I am not treating people equally under the law, that I am making special programmes just for women. Well, yes, that is the intention.

You (and all the other pro-central control people) constantly want to move and manipulate and adjust and fine tune society to your specific view of fairness/equality/quality/something.

And you want to do literally the exact same thing, for different reasons and a different direction.

[mum]

Its a good idea, on the surface. I have no problem with it.
However what sort of work do you think would be compatible with this idea ?
Looking after a kid is hard enough when you don't have anything else to do, during the coarse of a day you are lucky to maybe get 2hrs (sleep time) to actually do something.
The rest of the time is completely filled up with feeding, playing, supervising, educating.
It is a full time job in itself, to think that the woman would have time and concentration to do anything in any meaningful way is ridiculous.
You haven't had kids have you ?

[Rei Murasame]

Its a good idea, on the surface. I have no problem with it.

How can you have 'no problem with it', when it would require redistributive social programmes to fund it, and laws preventing companies from firing women for 'being pregnant' or 'being new mothers', as well watchdogs and ombudsmans to oversee that this is followed to the letter, funded by tax revenues?

However what sort of work do you think would be compatible with this idea ?

Basically none, which is why businesses would have to be given a grant by the state to create the appropriate facilities, and the state would also have to fund the creation of more daycare centres in more locations as an option too.

Ideally, women should only have to take 2 months off work after the birth of a child, which of course ought to be paid at full salary. After that it should be made possible for them to return to work.

Looking after a kid is hard enough when you don't have anything else to do, during the coarse of a day you are lucky to maybe get 2hrs (sleep time) to actually do something.

That may be an exaggeration, but yes, I am aware that it's a time consuming thing, that's why the solution would have to be so dramatic as what I've described in this post, and why I am not sure that you support the solution at all.

You haven't had kids have you ?

No, but I've been a kid.