From: Bautiste <Bautiste-AT-aol.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 21:07:48 EST
Subject: Re: M-TH: Violence against women


Bob, in a message dated 97-12-22 11:49:15 EST, you write:

>No I don't think so. Because the family as a unit was adopted to the 
>bourgeois revolutions and developing capitalism. The family existed also in 
>feudal society
>as a production unit in order to feed the local priests, monarchys and 
>generals..

True. Yet, THE family as a nuclear unit has not and does not exist in the form
it has taken under capitalism -- an atomic unit in a semi-trinitarian form;
with God the Father, the Virgin wife and the child(ren). Am I correct in
thinking that even Medieval society you had very _soft_ boundaries between
families, more like extended families rather than the isolated units we know
from capitalistic countries? Of course, in other types of socioi-cultural
milieus, we find very strange family units; I think in particular of the
matriarchal forms. There are many others.



>This sounds like the reverse side of the bourgeois feminist arguements these 
>days. I think they argue the same kind of stuff. 

Do they? I think that's okay, but I wonder whether they describe it exactly in
the terms I used? I was stressing the use of family strife by management to
keep the workers in place and thereby psychologically disable them from
thinking about anything beyond their own self-interests and needs.

thanks for the reply,

chuck miller




     --- from list marxism-thaxis-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---