this post was submitted on 10 Aug 2024
9 points (100.0% liked)

Socialism

2823 readers
136 users here now

Beehaw's community for socialists, communists, anarchists, and non-authoritarian leftists (this means anti-capitalists) of all stripes. A place for all leftist and labor news and discussion, as long as you're nice about it.


Non-socialists are welcome to come to learn, though it's hard to get to in-depth discussions if the community is constantly fighting over the basics. We ask that non-socialists please be respectful and try not to turn this into a "left vs right" debate forum by asking leading questions or by trying to draw others into a fight.


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

ACAB is a common slogan, especially in anarchist spaces. Should we really be using it though? It is a reference to children born without their parents being married, and due to christian morality is seen as inherently negative. It is effectively a slur. Do we really think that trying to enforce the hierarchies we are trying to get away from on others is going to help us? How have we allowed this slogan to become so common?

As an anarchist I think we should be defending these people, not punishing them with the hope of some of that transferring to cops.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Vodulas@beehaw.org 5 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Was bastard used in the systemic oppression of anyone? That sounds like sarcasm, but I am genuinely curious. Most of the ableist and racist slurs were and are currently used in that manner. Bastard to my knowledge has really only been used in it's original form in a far less systemic way, and typically only for those rich enough for it to matter to them. Someone pointed out religious people not being OK with kids born out of wedlock, and that is true. That being said, I grew up in a very evangelical household, and bastard was considered a bad word, so would not be used at all, much less in that context.

[–] rosethornRangerTTV@beehaw.org 3 points 1 month ago

it was used in systematic oppression, yes, in many instances historically and many ways in different groups

[–] rosethornRangerTTV@beehaw.org 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

https://www.pricegen.com/bastardy-or-illegitimacy-in-england/

some info I found it

a common thing is a lack of support structures or networks, often forced out of the nuclear family unit

[–] Vodulas@beehaw.org 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The laws listed in that collection all punish the parents, not the children. Most of them require the father to support the child, with the one in 1747 even giving the children apprenticeships with local tradesmen and farmers.

[–] rosethornRangerTTV@beehaw.org 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

if they have to make laws to make sure the children aren't abandoned, they are abandoned often

[–] Vodulas@beehaw.org 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Sure, but the laws are a sign of systemic support, not oppression.

[–] rosethornRangerTTV@beehaw.org 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

there are laws against rape, yet it is still used as a tool to maintain oppression and as oppression itself.

I'm done with this conversation