February 23, 2020

"When Lewis demands 'full surrogacy now,' she isn’t talking about commercial surrogacy.... she uses the surrogacy industry to build the argument that all gestation is work..."

"... because of the immense physical and emotional labor it requires of those who do it. She often refers to pregnancy as an 'extreme sport.' If all forms of pregnancy count as work, we can take a clear-eyed look at our current working conditions: 'It is a wonder we let fetuses inside us,' she says... 'This situation is social, not simply "natural." Things are like this for political and economic reasons: we made them this way.'... She imagines a future where the labor of making new human beings is shared among all of us, 'mother' no longer being a natural category, but instead something we can choose.... Her radical proposition is that we practice 'full surrogacy' by abolishing the family. That means caring for each other not in discrete private units (also known as nuclear households), but rather within larger systems of care that can provide us with the love and support we can’t always get from blood relations—something Lewis knows all too well.... In Lewis's utopian future, the family as we know it no longer exists. Everyone, regardless of gender, is a surrogate; we mother each other.... Lewis has found that when she talks about family abolition people respond as though she’s 'not even speaking English anymore … like [I’m] not even making syntactical sense,' she said at the e-flux lecture. 'Real brain explosion emoji to the max.'"

From "We Can't Have a Feminist Future Without Abolishing the Family/The feminist thinker Sophie Lewis has a radical proposal for what comes next" (Vice).

ADDED: It's so absurd to think that because there's not enough love in one place that you should go all-in on something completely different. Many people run their own life on reasoning like that: My husband/wife isn't fulfilling my dreams/satifying all my needs, so I've had it with this marriage. I need to grab for my last chance at true love/next chance at sexual gratification with this appealing stranger/the next person who comes along.

AND: Lewis manifests the left-wing instinct for leveling. It's not that the proposed system would create interlacing supportive love for everybody. It's that it would rid us of the love billionaires — those privileged few who have selfishly acquired happy families for themselves.

57 comments:

Seeing Red said...

It’s not radical. It’s been the goal.

rhhardin said...

Natural comes from nascor, to be born. Nascor nasci natus

The gnant in pregnant comes from gnascor, earlier form.

Shouting Thomas said...

The usual communist bullshit, once again presented as if it's something new.

We've already done this genocidal, crazy shit up good, kids.

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

A whole country as foster care and nursing homes. That sounds lovely.

Ann Althouse said...

@rh

Then, to say that a woman is "pregnant" is to say that SHE is "pre-birth." The feminist critique writes itself.

Seeing Red said...

I don’t want a feminist future.

They’re nasty bossy bitches.

And I’m coming to believe those who like Merle’s didn’t have children have this need to mother everyone to make up for it.

Shouting Thomas said...

I've been on a Unabomber binge on Netflix for the past couple of weeks.

Same surreal, childish rhetoric at work in this feminist manifesto as in the Unabomber's.

Same blithe assurance that the little Utopian world inside the author's head will manifest itself in perfect form if only... Everybody just has to be good and cooperate!

Every spoiled brat and mentally ill goof in the world seems to think that the world could be instantly re-arranged in perfect order to make him/her happy. If only... everybody would agree and obey!

Seeing Red said...

Again, I wish their mothers practiced what they preach.

Seeing Red said...

Merkel stupid autocorrect.

JAORE said...

Then, to say that a woman is "pregnant" is to say that SHE is "pre-birth." The feminist critique writes itself.

Because feminists have learned just so much since those simple people from the past.

If she is preggers she is in a condition that (typically, feminists will howl in objection,of course) leads to birth. So her condition is pre-birth.

policraticus said...

O, wonder!
How many goodly creatures are there here!
How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world,
That has such people in't!

Pretty sure Huxley meant it as a warning, not a guidebook.

Seeing Red said...

I read a few years ago a goal was abortion up to the pest being 2 years old, and look how far Buttegeig and Virginia advanced the cause -after the actual birth.

Seeing Red said...

Just get your tubes tied and leave us alone.

jimbino said...

A child-free couple is a family too. So is a mother and child. Now that we child-free have been paying our taxes to support the breeders, she wants us to share in PTA meetings, I suppose. I think it would be better to forget the kiddies and untax the child-free, both couples and singles.

Seeing Red said...

BTW- there’s your The Hand Maiden.

Seeing Red said...

I saw that when I was a kid. It was either The Twilight Zone or another show.

gilbar said...

This All Makes Perfect Sense!
Why don't we,

Just grow the kids, in fertilization tanks?
Have genitally separate types of kid
A. Boring one's that do boring things like think
B. Fun loving minxes that fuck pneumatically!
C. One's that like to work, 'cause they like to work
D. LOSERS!!!

With FREE Pot for ANYONE who wants it!
It Will Be A Brave New World!

Just asking questions (Jaq) said...

but rather within larger systems of care that can provide us with the love and support we can’t always get from blood relations—something Lewis knows all too well.

Mommy issues or daddy issues?

Just asking questions (Jaq) said...

" Now that we child-free have been paying our taxes to support the breeders,”

Save this for when you become elderly and need care from younger people: “You’re welcome."

Just asking questions (Jaq) said...

Maybe she could read Walden II and realize that these ideas are old hat.

Breezy said...

Silly and irrational woman.

whitney said...

It's not just Envy for the billionaires that would have a happy relationship it's envy for all her friends that are in a happy relationship though I'm guessing they're not many of them because she probably only hangs around with miserable single women. So it's probably just more random envy when she sees people holding hands in the park. But envy is definitely the motivator here

stlcdr said...

Did they....uh, really....use the word utopian?

Fernandinande said...

immense physical and emotional labor it requires of those who do it.

I'm bragging about how I spend 10% to 30% of my immense energy outlay on digesting food, and 70% to 90% of it on typing.

Jon said...

Utopian, Falopian ... what's the diff?

Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...

Lewis manifests the left-wing instinct for leveling. It's not that the proposed system would create interlacing supportive love for everybody. It's that it would rid us of the love billionaires — those privileged few who have selfishly acquired happy families for themselves.

Can someone translate this into English, please?

Or at least point me in the direction of an inexpensive Althouse-to-English translator?

Thank you.

hawkeyedjb said...

"those privileged few who have selfishly acquired happy families for themselves"

They make the same mistake about happy families that they make about capitalism. Neither happy families nor wealth exist in some fixed quantity. You can create more.

Anne in Rockwall, TX said...

Leftism and its lust for power runs on a single emotion ... envy.

jaydub said...

"Then, to say that a woman is "pregnant" is to say that SHE is "pre-birth." The feminist critique writes itself."

If a woman is pregnant the feminists would say she is "pre-abortion." There, fixed it for you in terms of the real feminist critique.

Matt said...

Is this news to anyone? That overwhelmingly lesbian and 'all sex is rape' types think trad families are the root of all evil?

This is a feature, not a bug.

Gahrie said...

One of the standard definitions of a Lefty is: Someone who is pissed off that somewhere, someone else is having a good time.

JAORE said...

Her mother must be so proud.

D.D. Driver said...

On a related topic, I watched the first episode of the Babies documentary on Netflix. It's really interesting. It's also a nice reminder that parental attachment and bonding is biologically hard wired. Systematically depriving babies of their maternal bond in devotional service to some grand political vision is cruel and ghoulish.

Temujin said...

Feminism has evolved to the point of being a noxious disease. It destroys everything it infects. And I should not have to say it, but some people would read that comment as me being misogynist. That, of course, is bullshit.

There is nothing 'pro-woman' about todays radical feminists. They are anti-human. And they have infected academia, the media, and our corporate HR offices.

It's all fun and following until they come for you. And believe me, they'll come for you. Totalitarians always do.

Skeptical Voter said...

Love billionaires--an interesting term. It's also an achievable state, although getting there takes some luck. It helps to follow the updated version of Kipling's God of The Copybook Headings. Graduate from school; get a job before you get married. Get married before you have children etc--rinse and repeat and generally stay on course thereafter. Not all can or will do it, and it's easy to get derailed along the way. To mix metaphors, not all salmon manage to make it to the top of the stream. But some do.

Bay Area Guy said...

Crazy embittered Communist Feminist has serious Daddy issues, and a miserable life - so she wants to abolish my family?

Thanks, but no. Happy Sunday!

M said...

I know several people who didn’t like their perfectly fine and “normal” families and went looking for a friend group to replace them. Guess who was there for these people when they became seriously ill or needed help paying their mortgages? Not their “friends”, it was of course their family they sneered at. Did they learn anything from this? Of course not.

Same deal with several women I’ve known who were twisted by modern feminism. They never managed to marry and have kids, even though they wanted to, because they had no concept of men as fellow human beings who also needed the support and compassion they demand for themselves. So they ran off all the boyfriends of their youth and were SHOCKED when interest in them fell of the cliff in their forties.

Guess what their solution was? Polyamory of course! Because the same stupid cows who would scream at their man for maybe looking at a woman in passing now were willing to have some fatty neck beard meet up with them once a week for brunch and a quickly. They now think of this as their “family network”. Low status guys who are married to low status women, the women desperate to not be left alone and poor in their middle age and so allow neck beard McFatty to roam. This is what Third Wave Feminism and the Left’s destruction of family has done. Created a huge pool of middle aged women who are angry and bitter but can not admit it was THEIR actions that lead to their failed life.

chickelit said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
chickelit said...

Bullshit destined to fail #Mansplaininginfourwords

cfkane1701 said...

Regarding her describing people squinching up their faces when she talks to them, where they look like "I'm not making syntactical sense," Lewis seems not to have learned that when everyone disagrees with you or thinks your ideas are crazy, it's not they who are wrong, it's you.

A generation or two has not learned this. I see this combination of arrogance and ignorance all the time. It's an out of control self-regard colliding with other minds in the world and being mystified that the other minds don't automatically reinforce the self-regard.

PaoloP said...

Quote: Then, to say that a woman is "pregnant" is to say that SHE is "pre-birth."
The feminist critique writes itself.

As it so often is the case with feminism, the objection misrepresents the meaning of the word as if it implies oppression and forceful imposition of an hetero-normative role (by the Patriarchy, of course). Instead, the etymology quite faithfully describes the CONDITION of women before birth.
With this kind of willingly unintelligent, prudish and frankly dishonest "objections", most feminism has de-legitimized itself.

n.n said...

Everyone is for choice: four choices, and a transhuman religious sect "Pro-Choice" that denies human evolution, dignity, and value: the fifth choice, or wicked solution. As for couples, also a choice, the single life, the virtual polygamist (friendship with "benefits"), but female and male chauvinists conflate what should be normalized, can be tolerated, and must be rejected.

Hey Skipper said...

[OP:] Lewis manifests the left-wing instinct for leveling. It's not that the proposed system would create interlacing supportive love for everybody. It's that it would rid us of the love billionaires — those privileged few who have selfishly acquired happy families for themselves.

[Toxic Waste of Pixels:] Can someone translate this into English, please?


I'd have thought it obvious enough.

Collectivists are all about equality of outcome: better that everyone be level with everyone else, even if that level is abysmal, than some, due to various combinations of luck and skill, experience conspicuous success.

Of course, equality of outcome is completely antagonistic to freedom. Which is Lewis, like all collectivists, won't be satisfied with people merely having the option (which they do now) to forsake the nuclear family.

Narr said...

Some people struggle with simple concepts (like Ms Lewis, who strikes me as bonkers) and others struggle with clear English and original compounds like "love billionaire."

"Leveling" is the elimination of differences of wealth, status, or standing; the Prof is smart enough to know that these sorts of policies--even when dealing with mere things, not something as evanescent and emergent as human love--are foolish. Utopian even.

"M" has described a social phenomenon that has escaped my notice entirely!

Narr
Woman is out of OE 'wif-man' IIRC

rightguy said...

This unhappy woman is proposing to revoke human nature when our true nature is immutable. Humans may be strange animals, but they are animals to the core, as the instinct to propagate the species is hardwired in the deepest and most primitive parts of our brains. Non-acknowledgement of this basic fact makes everything you say or write false.

The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said...

Love billionaires caught my fancy too. I’m the product of love billionaires and I’ve tried to carry on their investment strategies. I’m not quite in their class but I’m still a one-percenter.
Why do radical feminists even bother? None of this shit is in line with human nature.

LA_Bob said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
LA_Bob said...

Family and familiar have the same Latin root ("famulus", which means "servant" ironically). Ultimately, family is the group of one or more people you're familiar with. I think this familiarity is especially important to young children. They certainly act as though it is important.

Lewis came from a dysfunctional family where she apparently felt she was not loved (and probably was not in the "familiar" way). She seems to project that experience onto "society", which is an abstraction. Being "mothered" by someone unfamiliar is quite different to being mothered by someone familiar and thus trusted.

No family is perfect, but many are far better than others. Many are pretty empty. Lewis imagines the void that was her life filled by the whole world loving her. For those who knew family love, she sounds crazy. Sensitive and intelligent, she is at least a bit crazy. And wrong.

ALP said...

I laughed my ass off at this, living in the land of "Seattle Freeze". Seattle is full of idealistic single people that don't live near family. People would have to take their faces out of their devices first to make this system of 'love and support' function - and that ain't happening. r/Seattle has a regular stream of posts asking "how does anyone make friends around here?".

In a city where people struggle to make even shallow connections...creating a system where we all treat each other like the family we never had - this is a pie in the sky dream.

Yancey Ward said...

The woman is delusional.

Sebastian said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sebastian said...


"It's so absurd to think that because there's not enough love in one place that you should go all-in on something completely different."

It is so absurd to think that because joint decision-making about having kids doesn't always work out, you should go all-in on something completely different, like giving women the exclusive say over whether to carry a jointly produced baby to term.

Anyway, love is not her main concern. "She imagines a future where the labor of making new human beings is shared among all of us, 'mother' no longer being a natural category, but instead something we can choose."

Her proposal logically extends the feminist idea of women's liberation to the liberation from the fundamental "work" of giving birth. Just as logically, it elevates the universal demand for equality over the particularist claims of the traditional family. Of course, there's the slight problem that in her utopia women cannot choose to opt out of her utopia, but the primacy of female choice is just another step in feminist logic. That the logical end point of feminist thought horrifies people who have some semblance of ordinary morality left horrifies Althouse.

Bill Peschel said...

ALP: "that ain't happening. r/Seattle has a regular stream of posts asking "how does anyone make friends around here?"."

Coincidentally, my elder brother lived in Seattle for a number of years. He was gay, HIV+, and lived with a partner.

When he died last year, there was a lot of love on his FB page from his friends in the gay community. It certainly didn't seem like he was alone, even though he lived far away from his family for most of his life (and kept in touch with us through phone calls).

In other words, if you're sociable and giving, you'll be able to find friends. But you have to go out there and find them. Most people can't. It's like they expect someone else to do the emotional labor and risk rejection.

n.n said...

Rent-a-wome.. womb. Shared "burden". Variation on a theme.

Michael said...

The problem is that the family, like the Church, is a source of satisfaction and fulfillment outside the State, and is a rival power center in society - which could make it harder for Progressives to make everyone else live the way they want them to live. As Mussolini may have said: "Everything inside the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State."

Free country? Pshaw.

Assistant Village Idiot said...

She is just a child with a large vocabulary. Nothing to see here.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Ann Althouse said...It's so absurd to think that because there's not enough love in one place that you should go all-in on something completely different.

Absurd? Sure, but also common to the point of cliche. That's the driving force behind a whole genre of (women's) literature and movies! Eat Pray Love, Divorce Story, etc.