"The nuclear family"

[SyntaxVorlon]

Discussions of this nature quickly become heated because an attack on ANY kind of parenting method is invariably perceived as an attack upon parents who used it, and the children of such parents will become offended.

However, there are certain maxims which can be applied:

1. All other things being equal, two people can accomplish more than one person.
2. All other things being equal, a person staying at home is a more attentive and helpful parent than one who is at work.
3. All other things being equal, it is better for a child to have both male and female gender role models readily available (although a role model does not necessarily have to be one of the parents; uncles and aunts may suffice in that job).

The retort to claims about two-parent families and stay-at-home parents being superior is invariably constructed around the basic argument that all other things are NOT necessarily equal. This is often true. However, it does not alter the fact that these basic value relationships do exist. Yes, two shitty parents are not as good as one devoted one, but face it: two devoted parents are better than one.

It's a bit like saying that two hands are better than one, and having someone disprove the maxim by comparing a sickly weak two-handed person to a one-armed man who works out. It is entirely possible to prove the maxim wrong in particular cases, but as a basic principle, it still works because some other factor must exist in order to counteract it.

The problem is, nuclear families are already a decayed structure, which arose during the beginning of the industrial revolution. Families used to be large extended families living under one roof, several generations of parents and nurturers. Mostly this was based on farms and farm communites of agrarian societies. It is still true in some rare cases in america. But it was made rare by the move to cities and the space constraints thereto.
Nuclear families will eventually decay into what people of the future will define as families. Probably something along the lines of "Fusion family" or "eFamily." These would be good names for the developing family unit as the internet and perhaps higherlevel QM will allow new technology to develop that will take a major role in family life. Nuclear families were called that because they lived in middleclass luxury with a good amount of powered easy to use appliances and electronics.
Perhaps the extended family will make comeback, should the planet go through a move back to agriculture for whatever reason: Supergreenie reform of society, or thermonuclear reform of earth's surface, take your pick.

[Queeb Salaron]

The problem is, nuclear families are already a decayed structure, which arose during the beginning of the industrial revolution. Families used to be large extended families living under one roof, several generations of parents and nurturers. Mostly this was based on farms and farm communites of agrarian societies. It is still true in some rare cases in america. But it was made rare by the move to cities and the space constraints thereto.
Nuclear families will eventually decay into what people of the future will define as families. Probably something along the lines of "Fusion family" or "eFamily." These would be good names for the developing family unit as the internet and perhaps higherlevel QM will allow new technology to develop that will take a major role in family life. Nuclear families were called that because they lived in middleclass luxury with a good amount of powered easy to use appliances and electronics.
Perhaps the extended family will make comeback, should the planet go through a move back to agriculture for whatever reason: Supergreenie reform of society, or thermonuclear reform of earth's surface, take your pick.

::LIstens to the sounds of silence::

First, the Nuclear Family was so named because it was close-knit and small, like the nucleus of an atom, and eliminated all the outside orbiatal relatives like grandparents, aunts and uncles.

Second, I don't know where you came up with this idea of the eFamily, but I, for one, think it's absurd. The only way you could make families smaller is to take the children away and raise them separately. And that will NEVER happen, at least not as long as I'm alive.

Third, just because something becomes smaller does not mean that it is decaying. The nuclear family evolved from the extended family as a matter of convenience. During the Industrial Revolution, people lived in small, cramped apartments in big cities. There was simply no room for an extended family. It had nothing to do with decay.

[Ignorant twit]

I see, and a possible explanation couldn't be that places with a higher than average incident of single families give rise crime. Thus wherever you have single parent households there will be a rise in crime?

That's either circular logic or false-cause. I can't tell which. I mean yes, it COULD be an explanation, but I doubt it. I don't think single-parent households create criminals.

Nope. You asser that high crime areas give rise a higher incidence of crimenals among single parent families. I'm saying a higher incidence of crimenals among single parent families may give rise to high crime areas.

Hey we could both be right and the system feeds back on itself.

Except that now we're seeing reverse urban flight, where the most valued pieces of property are in the city as opposed to the suburbs. In Boston, brownstone apartments on Commonwealth Ave. go for upwards of $1 million. This reverse urban flight (or Reverse White Flight, as it's been called) is also a very real phenomenon.

You obviously have never visted the lovely city of Detroit. Doesn't matter which direction things go, if all crime free housing with good schools and the rest then those who can will move there. Those who can't stay behind. The value of the housing in the area people are fleeing from goes down, and somebody who doesn't care as much moves in.

In my experience, colored heavily by the rat's den that is Detroit, you have about 6 steps from the Rich Yuppies to the crack dealers. If you live amongst the crack dealers and gang wars and can move out to where you just face burglers and arsonists you do it. If you can move up from there to just facing hookers and drunken brawlers; you do it. If you can move up from there to cheap neighborhood with little crime, you do that. If you can move up to a place where everyone has a neat lawn and the schools have a 97% success rate you do that. If you can live in a gated community with pool and a golf course; you do that. If somebody in the 2nd best neighborhood moves to the 1st, somebody from the 3rd tends to move into the 2nd. It happens when people flee rural communities, it happens when people flee cities. Those left behind get shafted.

The simple problem is single parents lack the resources to move up. If the neighborhood is heading downhill, they can't afford to flee up and out.

And what "rewards" are you talking about? If other people move out, the people who can't are still poor. In this case, single-parent households are still left behind when everyone else moves away. And it's not like the spaces created are left empty; they're all being filled by richer people. If anything, this creates a stark class difference, and THAT is what causes the level of crime.

Actually it is filled with poorer people. Rich people like to live by other rich people. If the rich people move out of a neighborhood, then property values begin to decline and people can afford to move in. At the bottom tier of housing nobody moves in and you get abandoned housing, burnt out homes, and massive crime infestation.

It takes resources to move out of the hellholes and into areas with less crime, single parents simply lack resources ... on average ... compared to couples.

Regardless of how you dice it two parents are better than one. They can more easily move out of crime infested areas, devote more man-hours to exclusive parenting. And it shows in the statistics.

[Queeb Salaron]

Hmm. Our two cities are very different.

::Shrugs:: Keep in mind, too, that the Boston method for crime prevention became the model for America in the early 90's. We went from 300+ murders a year in the late 80s to 30 murders a year in 1996. The program was implemented in 1991, IIRC.

::Smiles:: Everyone should move to Boston.

[SyntaxVorlon]

The problem is, nuclear families are already a decayed structure, which arose during the beginning of the industrial revolution. Families used to be large extended families living under one roof, several generations of parents and nurturers. Mostly this was based on farms and farm communites of agrarian societies. It is still true in some rare cases in america. But it was made rare by the move to cities and the space constraints thereto.
Nuclear families will eventually decay into what people of the future will define as families. Probably something along the lines of "Fusion family" or "eFamily." These would be good names for the developing family unit as the internet and perhaps higherlevel QM will allow new technology to develop that will take a major role in family life. Nuclear families were called that because they lived in middleclass luxury with a good amount of powered easy to use appliances and electronics.
Perhaps the extended family will make comeback, should the planet go through a move back to agriculture for whatever reason: Supergreenie reform of society, or thermonuclear reform of earth's surface, take your pick.

::LIstens to the sounds of silence::

First, the Nuclear Family was so named because it was close-knit and small, like the nucleus of an atom, and eliminated all the outside orbiatal relatives like grandparents, aunts and uncles.

Second, I don't know where you came up with this idea of the eFamily, but I, for one, think it's absurd. The only way you could make families smaller is to take the children away and raise them separately. And that will NEVER happen, at least not as long as I'm alive.

Third, just because something becomes smaller does not mean that it is decaying. The nuclear family evolved from the extended family as a matter of convenience. During the Industrial Revolution, people lived in small, cramped apartments in big cities. There was simply no room for an extended family. It had nothing to do with decay.

1: Really, I didn't know that, I thought it was just the time period that was being noted, do you have a source?
2: I was working under the assumption that the new family structures will be named after their timeperiod, not that houses will get smaller. I was refering mainly to the family structured originally posted in this topic, same sex, single parent, etc. Those that have formed due to new economics and different ethics pervading society.
3: I was refering here to the way conservatives view the 'moral decline' of the family in society. It is an evolution of the family unity to pervailing economics. I was just being very very subtle in my juxtaposition.

[Ignorant twit]

::Shrugs:: Keep in mind, too, that the Boston method for crime prevention became the model for America in the early 90's. We went from 300+ murders a year in the late 80s to 30 murders a year in 1996. The program was implemented in 1991, IIRC.

Well we went from 600 a year in '91 to 400 in '96. Of course those figures are in dispute as numerous "missing persons" are never found after turf battles.

Detroit is a spectacular failure and I'm almost to the point I think it would be cheaper to burn the whole place down and start over. We really must thank Coleman Young, his solution to crime - ask the criminals to go please rob the other side of 8-mile (city-limits)

There are places in Detroit where you roll up the windows, lock the doors, and place a tire iron on the dashboard ... and then don't stop moving till you hit the freeway.

I was refering here to the way conservatives view the 'moral decline' of the family in society. It is an evolution of the family unity to pervailing economics. I was just being very very subtle in my juxtaposition.

Oh please there is NO economic benifit to a single parent family. The only reason single families abound is because a good many men are losers who don't understand the virtues of condoms or idiots who think marriage is a fashion statement and have kids without a lasting commitment.

Normally one parent gets screwed, the child(ren) gets screwed, and one louse walks away.

Economics has NOTHING to do with this familial transition.

[UltraViolence83]

I for one hold to the idea that we should put more social importance/power into the family. I'm willing to bet we would have less incidences of Columbine wannabes if we did so. Possibly even certain types of crime such as drug-dealing and petty robbery.

Our modern American society makes it out that you are a pathetic loser if you live with your parents (guilty here, I'm living with my grandmother right now, soon to move in with my mother), whilst in other societies it is accepted practice. In my opinion, our society is pressuring the family unit to decay regardless of what form it is in to promote the media's subjective value of self-worth. However, it is my belief that a strong family is much more helpful psychologically than old reruns of Murphy Brown.

I don't give a fuck if our current socioeconomic troubles dictate against it. If enough people do it then society would have to change to accommadate it regardless.

Maybe my ideas hold some merit, maybe I've been watching The Godfather too much lately. I feel that both are true.


Vito Corleone: "What is a man without his family?"

[Slartibartfast]

Damn, I keep coming back to this thread thinking it's about Lee Majors and Lindsay Wagner...