Femi-Communist Sophie Lewis’ new book — ‘Abolish the Family: A Manifesto for Care and Liberation’ — hopes to destroy the silly, destructive family construct, and she starts in the kitchen. This isn’t her first assault on the dreaded nuclear family.
Stephen Green, Scott Ott, and Bill Whittle create five new episodes of Right Angle each week, including one for Members only. When you join, you can become an author on our Member-written blog, and engage with like-minded folks in the forums and comments. To become a Member tap the big green button above.
If you found value in this episode, and want to express it tangibly, use the big blue button above to make a one-time or recurring donation to support this work.
Explore the full Right Angle archive.
26 replies on “Say It Ain’t So! Abolish the Kitchen to Abolish the Family, Says Femi-Communist Author”
Attractive test tube. LOL omg. I love you guys.
So sophie lewis wants to abolish the kitchen? If she does then she’s gonna starve to death! I hope she does. We don’t need her.
Sophie, yell me you didn’t get that pony w/o telling me you didn’t get that pony.
Where do these piece of crap people come from? The gap between the haves and have nots continues to widen every year, but money doesn’t mean your family life will be any better.
Tearing apart families is a very messed up way to “improve” peoples lives.
Communal kitchens, in order to work, require people having respect for others. The left has no respect for anyone or anything. Stealing food is a big problem in shared refrigerators.
I watch a lot of tiny house videos. A large percentage of folks building a tiny house opt for dedicating at least a third of very limited space to a kitchen.
And what do real estate agents tell you? Nice kitchens, and bathrooms, sell houses.
And the underlying inference is that the proles will eat in communal kitchens with each other and share the cooking and cleaning duties.
The “intellectual elite”, a part of which Sophie Lewis clearly thinks includes herself, will dine in their dachas with meals prepared and evidence cleaned by the proles with whom she won’t deign to dine.
There really is only one thing more Bats**t crazy than this woman and ideas like Her’s, and that is the Bats**t crazy media outlets and “literary” personnel working in those places, who give any traction at all to Left-Wingbat ideas such as this Lewis person espouses.
You have nailed it. That she got published is an indictment of the entire industry.
Abolish the kitchen and move everyone to community kitchens, then these will be gov’t controlled kitchens and everyone will get a ration card for the day.
See “The Caves of Steel” Asimov, 1953 for a good description.
And yes, Isaac was left-leaning, but I think he wrote of his ideal in the next stories: “The Naked Sun” and “The Robots of Dawn”
Caves shows the overgrown cities of Earth and gives descriptions that should be warnings of the lack of warmth and relationships that the crush of humanity brings.
The fact that this scenario is one the left is trying to achieve and sees how to books where we see dystopian warning is very telling.
“…the left…sees how to books where we see dystopian warning…”
I have a tee shirt with “1984 was not meant to be an instruction manual” on it, and JP sells one which says “make 1984 fiction again.”
Scott is right when he says that having a family doesn’t mean that it prevents one from enjoying other relationships. This illustrates a key misunderstanding that underscores most of socialists and communists thought.
Socialists always see the “pie” as fixed. That is, if one person has a bigger slice that means everyone else has a smaller slice. They believe this because they don’t understand how wealth is created. This also applies to one’s “wealth” in relationships. To them, the love you have for your family takes away the love you could have for your neighbor or for the state. To the socialists, everything is limited, except their desire to control.
Yes, as you point out, most Socialists and Communists see everything as a zero-sum game. That’s what the pie situation you describe is called and I’m sure you know that but some who read here might not.
Where human beings are concerned there is rarely a zero-sum game involved. Humans create, we bring things into reality that did not exist before. Wealth is a great example of that. The city of Los Angeles used to be just an empty desert a couple hundred years ago. Today the total wealth extant in the city of Los Angeles and greater metro area represent more wealth than existed in the entire world two hundred years ago.
That wealth was not stolen from anyone. No one went to Africa and forced slaves to mine the gypsum and lime in the concrete of L.A. No one went to Minnesota and forced the indigenous to mine iron ore or to Pittsburg and stole iron smelting and casting equipment to make the steel in the buildings.
A simple example of the creation of wealth through labor and investment is to take a kernel of corn, plant it, and then harvest what grows. An average stalk of corn has 2-3 ears on it containing many times that single kernel the plant came from. The wealth is literally pulled up out of the soil and is realized as wealth when the plant is harvested and the crop paid sold.
The enemies of our Republic lie when they represent the human condition as a zero-sum game. They have to. In doing so they deny reality and the future can never be built on unreality. Reality holds great promise but despite the empty promises of the Left their version of the future can only ever lead to dystopia. Their stated goals magnify the ills they claim to want to remedy, giving us more not less of the things they say they want to “fix”.
I think the zero-sum game makes them feel better about not having as much as they believe they deserve. And, they don’t have to blame themselves for having less, they can blame the establishment.
True.
It not only make them feel better, it provides them with an argument and justification. Sadly for everyone, the future cannot be based on a false premise and if people adopt that false premise then the future can only hold disaster.
1) Nice “Terminator” reference, Steve.
2) IIRC, bat-$hit crazy was the definition in the DSM-III.
3) I can still remember details from when my first child was born in 1987. Once someone had an experience like that, I find it difficult to believe that they would chose a sterile method of having children.
A funny thing about family … The good ones are really great and the genuinely bad ones are horrible. If you come from one you can never truly understand the other.
There’s a sort of dichotomy in effect thereby. I know people who hate their families, literally hate them. I know people who love their families and are never quite as comfortable as they are around their own family. Not that they’re not comfortable around non-family, that they are at their most comfortable around family. This is a spectrum of course, there are degrees involved but those are the two endpoints. I’m a member of the latter group but …
That only applies to my Mom’s side of the family for me. My Dad’s side of the family are a bunch of self-centered git for the most part, with a few notable exceptions. I don’t hate them but I don’t go out of my way to interact with any of them except those exceptions.
This situation gives me a little insight into both ends of the spectrum. Not a lot because I don’t hate the one side of my family, I just don’t like them a lot as a generality. It’s OK, no one is going to murder anyone and truth be told they don’t really like me a lot either. They’re civil, friendly and welcoming to me and vice-versa. There may be no great amount of affection wasted on each other but … We’re still family and we all acknowledge that.
Neither side would agree with this Sophie Lewis idiot. If I had to guess I’ve probably only met a handful of people in my whole life that would agree with that poor, damaged person. Every single one of those is also damaged in some form and degree.
So I watched this episode of RA thinking about how a person becomes like Sophie Lewis. I don’t mean her views on the family, I mean her views on proselytizing her attitudes towards the family. What makes her think that there are enough people in the world that care to read and implement her ideas of why the family is worthy of destruction?
Which brings me back around to that handful of people I mentioned a couple paragraphs previously. They’re the only audience for this, they’re the only hope of support for this sort of thing. They’re only, anecdotally, a very few people. They are atypical. Which puts them outside the norm. Which means their views are abnormal on this topic when weighed against the rest of us.
I’m a bit abnormal myself. I’ve been places and done and seen things that most people never will and this has had an impact on the way I view things. (You should be glad if you’re in that particular group of ‘most people’.) I’m aware of this and I make a serious effort to at least try to see things the way normal people would. This always entails an intellectual effort because my emotions are skewed and I know this. I try to compensate for this by being aware of it.
Even so, I rarely try to convince people to adopt my abnormal viewpoints. I need to regulate the expression of my views so that I can relate to and communicate with other people. I doubt many of you have any inkling of ‘how I really feel’ on a lot of things. If you did you’d know I can be pretty bloody minded and dispassionate. I consciously tamp that sort of thing down because it’s not productive.
In short, I strive for the normal. I do this because I know there is a boundary line between normal and abnormal. I advocate for and support the normal because ‘normal’ is the best course.
How does this relate to Sophie Lewis and her desire to erase the family from human society?
That’s easy to answer. Sophie does not strive for normal, she does not support normal, and it seems very likely to me that not only does she not see the value in normal she probably doesn’t even know what normal is.
This is a definition of a sociopathic personality.
In decades past Sophie’s sociopathic aberrations would be recognized, labelled for the sociopathic irregularity they really are, and would not be published by any entity that realized such to be the case.
That she did manage to get her views published and that other sociopaths endorsed her views is a red flag for normal people.
Therein lies the problem. There was a time when ‘normal’ would be taken for granted and anything that attacked ‘normal’ would be an outlier worthy only of pity and scorn.
We find ourselves in the uncomfortable position of having to defend and fight for what is normal. A lot of people don’t realize this and are oblivious to the real power of normal.
If you don’t fight, abnormal will become normal and normal will become abnormal.
Steven Green encapsulated the whole problem in saying …
“You’ve got to fight this stuff or they just keep coming back.”
The way to fight this stuff is to get other normal people to realize that their very normality is under attack. Then stand up against this absurd sociopathy anywhere it is encountered.
Mechanical spiders. Paint them in pastel colors for cooking and cleaning and then paint them a sinister black for community defense in swarm mode. Everyone could be made obsolete.
I had the same reaction as Bill – what in the world happened to this woman to bring her to such a level of mendacity toward human flourishing? She must have been horribly abused, albeit in a subtle, but deadly way: extreme neglect? indoctrination by psychological torture? I don’t know, but this woman is in serious need of an intervention.
There’s no subtle way to say this so I’ll just say it – Sophie strikes me as a woman in need of some serious d*ck action
you first! Not it!
Sister Babe doesn’t let me date other women!
That one will definitely steal your soul. Stay far away.
I think this individual proper sexual designation is WTF
The sad part is, while I wouldn’t call her a hottie she’s not the blue haired, multiple pierced, tattooed wildebeast I was expecting, either. The actual, honest advice I’d give her is to stop dating male-feminist-soy-boys and try dating a man instead
The Left’s war on women gets ever more insane.
God’s manifestation on Earth had to be born from a human woman. Think about how important her role is to our Creator. A woman teaches her children humanity.
The Left thinks that the way to make a woman strong is to turn her into a man. Big muscles, Ninja fighting skills, and no attachments to men, children, or family are the portrayals we see on the big screen.
Independent women joining together to make each other “delicacies” outside of a traditional family has an upside for these radical feminists. It can only last one generation.
So this is where we are today. Coming up with more deconstructive ways to destroy even the most core institution we have for building society, learning how to relate with other people. Under the guise of scholarship.
The world of surrogates and no family is exactly the kind of dystopia Orwell (1984) and Rand (The Fountainhead) set their stories against.