# data[].attributes.body
their are lots of things that caught my attention regarding this reading, because it was the first time hearing or basically reading such thing and also the fact that she had mentioned the work of other well known writers who have studied the gender politics of American slavery. They have helped in understand the experiences of enslaved women and the impact of slavery on gender roles.she mention in her book/ article about the idea of abolishing the traditional family structure and property ownership. While it may sound liberating, it's important to think about the potential consequences and how it could affect care and support systems.
I also agree with O'Brien that the family is a patriarchal institution that oppresses women. However, I am not convinced that the abolition of the family is the only way to achieve liberation for women. I believe that there are other ways to challenge the patriarchal structures that oppress women, such as changing the way that we think about gender roles and challenging the economic structures that make women dependent on men.
And i found Engels ideas quite convincing to be honest especially when he says , the bourgeois family serves as a means of passing down wealth and property from one generation to the next, thereby maintaining the existing social order. He contends that the institution of the family, in its current form, reinforces the subordination of women and their confinement to domestic roles.

Engels proposes that the abolition of private property and the transformation of the family structure are necessary steps towards achieving true equality and liberation. He argues that by eliminating the private ownership of property, the basis for class divisions and exploitation would be dismantled. In turn, this would lead to the liberation of women from their subordinate roles within the family and society.

# data[].attributes.body
The article offers a profound reflection on the power relationships and inequalities present in conventional family arrangements. Therefore, the author's provocative arguments cast doubt on the notion that the family is a structure that is fundamentally supportive and caring for everyone involved. This article helps readers to critically analyze their own experiences about familial connections by challenging the influence of dynamics and inequalities within family systems. Additionally, the concept of doing away with the family, in my opinion, serves as a crucial challenge to imagine more fair alternatives and it pushes us to think about how we may develop communities that prioritize individual liberty, and communal well-being.

# data[].attributes.body
I found the work of Michelle O’Brein quite intriguing. The author goes beyond the problem of family violence. In the previous readings, we can see that women are being marginalized in terms of unwaged household labor and being the victims of family violence. However O’Brein also brought up an idea of proletarians being oppressed by employers, impling capitalists. Thus, the author seems to support Marx’s idea that capitalistic regimes and bourgeois families are the fundamental targets to blame. Nevertheless, the author seems to criticize most of Marx and Engel’s points about queer community and sexual reproduction. She is more sympathetic to Charles Fourier, bringing up the arguments of his claims towards Marx and Engel’s viewpoints on the issues of queer community and sexual desire. O’Brein cites Fourier’s thoughts of ‘a new amorous world’ where eroticism and desire would be the central mechanisms for social change (171). Are these only the components that can lead us to socialism and social change?

# data[].attributes.body
I personally really enjoyed this text as it was a great addition to my knowledge of Marxist theory, particularly his theory of abolishing the family. M.E. O'Brien was a much more vivid writer than Marx and Engels because she gave much more context and analysis rather than pure theory. She really got me thinking when she pointed out the intolerance to sexual deviancy and family heterogeneity. Because a lot of the examples she gave were either unheard of for me or it was so common in todays society that it didn't even cross my mind: one example that was unheard of would be the "sweetheart children" on page 172, perhaps because it under such unnecessary attack due to the socially unacceptable nature of its informal union; An example that didn't cross my mind until she pointed out was prostitution, because I always assumed that line of work is constantly under attack due to its opposition to certain religions, but never the fact that it may have been a product of capitalism. I also thought Fourier was a great addition because I've only heard of him before but was never familiar with his theories and arguments. A few extracts and summaries of his theories was not like anything I've heard before, so I am excited to learn more about him in other readings either in this class or the rest of my academic career. I wonder what the rest of you guys think about O'Brien's interpretation of Engle's argument that "marriage would find its true realization in communist love" (170).

# data[].attributes.body
I really, really enjoyed this text! I always really appreciate Marxist analysis in contexts like these, because I think it gives me a familiar framework to built new ideas onto. I think the whole section on family violence was really informative about some other key issues we've been discussing in the course thus far, such as base needs interacting with social needs to produce dominance. I think historical materialism, while it has its flaws, can be really powerful when addressing these relationships. Additionally, the clarification O'Brian makes between Marx & Engels desire to destroy the family as destroying the bourgeois was really valuable to me. I'm curious to know if any other students found the centering of Marxism helpful or detrimental, and if there's alternative schools of thought you'd consider even partially applying to this question of "Family Abolition."

# data[].attributes.body
In this section from ME O'Brien's "To Abolish the Family," she historicizes the family as a social construction, and reviews thoughts from a variety of philosophers who wrote about the abolition of the family in the United States and United Kingdom. One portion I found particularly compelling was an argument by Charles Fourier, who "offered a vision of socialism where eroticism and desire were the mechanisms for social change, social cohesion and human fulfillment" (171 in course reader). Fourier brings the notion of a pleasure politic to revolution. This is distinctly different than Marx and Engels thinking on the abolition of the family, who criticized the family under capitalism, but weren't working towards its immediate abolition, but rather the transformation of its functions within socialist or communist society. I wonder how people in the class thought about these opposing viewpoints, and how they come up in the family as it stands now?

# data[].attributes.body
1. Write a short (one or two-paragraph) reflection on the article by Michelle O'Brien.
2. Ask an interpretive question at the end of your reflection.
3. Read carefully your colleagues' posts.
4. Answer all their interpretive questions in the comments to their posts.
5. Go back to your post and read the answers by your peers to your own question.

# data[].attributes.body
This reading focused on the history of family formation and the forces that influenced ideal and realized family forms in the late 19th and 20th centuries. An enduring question within socialist movements is the abolition of the family; of what that actually means and what it could look like. Some writers, including Marx and Clara Zetkin, hold a normative assumption towards the family form, holding that socialism will enable the realization of bourgeois family ideals of care while eschewing their rigidly authoritarian properties as economic units of inheritance and labor reproduction. Others, such as Luxembourg, maintain that economic and political participation go hand-in-hand, and minimizing the coercive dynamic of the male-earned family wage would empower women to be self-sufficient and able to participate in politics on their own terms. As the 20th century went on, however, workers' movements increasingly appealed to a politics of bourgeois respectability in order to win concrete gains in living standards. Only by appealing to their employers' bourgeois family morality, and aspiring towards bourgeois family forms, to the detriment of women's and POC's access to employment, could the predominately white and male working-class movements in the US secure higher wages, namely the family wage.
One thing I thought was interesting in the earlier parts of the reading was the emphasis on violence as an accepted method of coercive control, which the author describes as especially characteristic of the period of urbanization in the 19th century. Gradually, employers moved away from the direct participation in violence and increasingly relied upon the state's legal monopoly through legislation, and the informal but pervasive private violence of the patriarchal family form. I would add that this distancing from the application of violence to discipline workers is arguably enabled by the total dependence on the market that is characteristic of urban wage labor of the time, and is now practically universal. The unwaged family labor common to early modern households, especially those involving the procurement of daily sustenance, were inarguably hard, dull, and repetitive. But they afforded a small degree of political and economic freedom which was tied to the land on which families lived, a freedom not shared by urban wage workers. By obliterating the population's connection to their means of subsistence, the reorganization of land that forced people into cities is arguably the most foundational and enduring acts of violence of the time, and is still ongoing today. By this single act of dislocation, entire generations of people right up to the present day were made completely dependent on the market (i.e. their employers) for their survival. In this context I am ambivalent about the prospect of "waging" household labor; should we lean into the market, actively bringing ourselves at every hour of our lives to this ruling transactional sphere? Is that revolutionary? Abstractly, wouldn't it be better to move away from the market as the only medium of social exchange? But what alternatives really are there? Every minute of our time is bought and sold already, by the interclass dependency created by economic enmeshment with the market which determines our survival and the quality of our lives before we are even born; only this is not recognized as such, and revolutionary element in advocating for the visibility of unwaged work is fundamentally the desire for recognition. Recognition is a crucial foundation for the effective mediation of any dispute, whether interpersonal or between entire social classes. The question I find impossible to answer is, if it can be obtained, what would we do with this recognition, in light of the dominance of the market over our lives? What do others think?