"Family abolition is a commitment to making the care necessary for human flourishing freely available throughout society. Rather than relying solely on one's immediate personal relationships, access to care could be built into the social fabric of our collective lives. Family abolition is the vision that the basis of thriving should not depend on who your parents happen to be, who you love, or who you choose to live with. Family abolition is a horizon of sexual and gender freedom beyond the bigotry imposed by those on whom we depend. Family abolition is the expansion of care as a universal, unconditional social good. Family abolition is not just the positive assertion of care but also a refusal of the harmful relationships of domination that the family form enables. Family abolition is a belief that no child should be trapped by cruel parents; no woman should be afraid of poverty or isolation in leaving her violent husband; no aging, disabled, or sick person should be afraid of having to depend on an indifferent and uncaring family member. Family abolition is the recognition that no human being should ever own or entirely dominate another person, even children. No individual should have the means to coerce intimacy or labor from another, as current property relations enable. Family abolition is the destruction of private households as systems of accumulating power and property at the cost of others' well-being."

Family Abolition: Capitalism and the Communizing of Care, pages 6-7

"We have to find out one another's real names and struggle together against the system that makes arbitrary data on birth certificates shape people's fates. It should be elementary socialism, not some fringe eccentricity of queer ultra-leftists, to be striving towards a regime of cohabitation, collective eating, leisure, eldercare, and childrearing...

"I'd wager that you, too, can imagine something better than the lottery that drops a neonate arbitrarily among one or two or three or four individuals (of a particular class) and keeps her there for the best part of two decades without her consent, making her wholly beholden to them for her physical survival, legal existence, and economic identity, and forcing her to be the reason they give away their lives in work. I'd wager that you, too, can imagine something better than the norm that makes a prison for adults -- especially women -- out of their own commitment to children they love. Together, we can invent accounts of human "nature," and ways of organizing social reproduction, that are not just economic contracts with the state, or worker training programs in disguise. Together, we can establish consensus-based modes of transgenerational cohabitation, and large-scale methods for distributing and minimizing the burdens of life's work."

Abolish the Family: A Manifesto for Care and Liberation, page 18

"Once again, the processes of naturalisation, individualisation and privatisation that sustain the family’s social reproductive function and couple form also constitute the model of bio-genetic kinship that predefines and narrows our field of social relationships. One way to narrate the relationships between these three processes is to consider how the naturalisation of kinship sustains the privatisation of care which in turn redounds on the individualisation that allows us to imagine children as possessions. The privatisation associated with the privileging of bio-genetic kinship as the basic building block of the family, not only helps to provide the ideological cover for the state and capital’s abdication of responsibility to support the labour of childcare and eldercare noted earlier, but it also encourages the conception of children as the personal property of the parent or parents... The emotional responses that we might have to other children pale in comparison to the intense affects that we are expected to invest in children that we breed and/or raise as our own. Rather than experiment with countless possibilities of collective parenting and models of care, we double down on this one fragile institutional arrangement, which, under the conditions of widespread economic precarity, forces one or sometimes two parents to bear an even heavier burden of intensive labour and affective devotion."

"Abolition of the family: the most infamous feminist proposal," Feminist Theory, pages 13-14

"What were the values underlying our ancestors' nonmonogamy that might articulate with 21st-century Indigenous lives? Many Indigenous communities still exhibit a framework of extended kinship where responsibilities are more diffusely distributed, where we work as groups of women (or men, or other gendered people ideally) to share childcare, housing, and other resources. In my experience, our ways of relating often seem to contradict the monogamous couple and nuclear family. I am interested in seeing us not only implicitly but also explicitly de-center those family forms. Perhaps our allegiances and commitments are more strongly conditioned than we realize by a sense of community that exceeds rather than fails to meet the requirements of settler sex and family. The abuse and neglect in so many Indigenous families born of colonial kidnapping, incarceration, rape, and killing are all too real. But perhaps our relentless moves to caretake in tiospaye [Ed.: a Lakota word that means "extended family"] more than in normative settler family forms is not simply the best that we can do. Maybe it is the best way to heal?

"...Colonial notions of family insidiously continue to stigmatize us as they represent the normative standard against which we are measured. Perhaps our kinship arrangements are actually culturally, emotionally, financially, and environmentally more sustainable than that nuclear family, two-parent model we are so good at failing at, and that's why we are "failing."

“Making Love and Relations Beyond Settler Sex and Family” from Making Kin not Population: Reconceiving Generations, pages 156-7