Family and Society

[J.R. Brown]

What's more important, a traditional family accepted by society and defined as the only true family by the moral right, in which father goes to work and mother stays home with kids, but there is no love in that family or a non-traditional family built on love and trust.

Essentially I am asking if a having a traditional family defined by the norms of society and the Christian Coalition is more important than having a family no matter how strange it may be built on love and trust? Which is more important to you and why?

[dazzleman]

Another loaded question.

On the whole, traditional families are better than alternative families. 

Is every traditional family better than every alternative family?  No.  But on average, traditional families get better results.

[Richard]

There is no such thing as an alternative family.  But for sake of argument, lets say there is.  I will consider the following alternative family in the argument: 843 men married to 59 women.  Between these 900 odd people, there are at least another 700 marriages between pairs of people, pairs of 3 people, pairs of 8 people, and pairs of 13 people, male, female, or any mixture.  All 900 people have sex with each other and are as you say, in a loving relationship.  There are 733 kids in this family.

Obviously the traditional family is better, even if it has problems.

[Joe Republic]

There is no such thing as an alternative family.  But for sake of argument, lets say there is.  I will consider the following alternative family in the argument: 843 men married to 59 women.  Between these 900 odd people, there are at least another 700 marriages between pairs of people, pairs of 3 people, pairs of 8 people, and pairs of 13 people, male, female, or any mixture.  All 900 people have sex with each other and are as you say, in a loving relationship.  There are 733 kids in this family.

Obviously the traditional family is better, even if it has problems.

Congratulations you just described the entire population of Wayne County, Utah.

[John Dibble]

On the whole, traditional families are better than alternative families. 

Is every traditional family better than every alternative family?  No.  But on average, traditional families get better results.

I would agree with this, mainly just because traditional families just tend to have more stable environments. Stability is a very important factor in raising a child, and the reason many non-traditional family units gain their structure is because of some largely destabilizing factor.

[J.R. Brown]

On the whole, traditional families are better than alternative families. 

Is every traditional family better than every alternative family?  No.  But on average, traditional families get better results.

I would agree with this, mainly just because traditional families just tend to have more stable environments. Stability is a very important factor in raising a child, and the reason many non-traditional family units gain their structure is because of some largely destabilizing factor.

You don't think love is more important than having a "traditional" family, and what makes you think that a traditional family creates a more stable children? There could be no love in a traditional family, and don't tell me traditional families are more loving.

[dazzleman]

On the whole, traditional families are better than alternative families. 

Is every traditional family better than every alternative family?  No.  But on average, traditional families get better results.

I would agree with this, mainly just because traditional families just tend to have more stable environments. Stability is a very important factor in raising a child, and the reason many non-traditional family units gain their structure is because of some largely destabilizing factor.

You don't think love is more important than having a "traditional" family, and what makes you think that a traditional family creates a more stable children? There could be no love in a traditional family, and don't tell me traditional families are more loving.

You're in denial of reality, and simply mouthing politically correct propaganda.

Is every traditional family better than every alternative family?  No, of course not.  But we're talking trends here.  Traditional families, with a mother and father happily married to each other, are the most stable environment for raising kids.  Other types of families are generally not as good.

Are you familiar with the statistics on the outcomes of raising kids in alternative families?  Children from single parent homes perform worse in school, girls from these homes are more likely to get pregnant as teenagers, and about 75% of those in prison are from single parent homes.

The explosion of single parent homes is a calamity, and the segments of society that have had the greatest explosion have also fared the worst socially and economically.

These are simply undeniable facts that no amount of political correctness can cover up.

[John Dibble]

On the whole, traditional families are better than alternative families. 

Is every traditional family better than every alternative family?  No.  But on average, traditional families get better results.

I would agree with this, mainly just because traditional families just tend to have more stable environments. Stability is a very important factor in raising a child, and the reason many non-traditional family units gain their structure is because of some largely destabilizing factor.

You don't think love is more important than having a "traditional" family, and what makes you think that a traditional family creates a more stable children? There could be no love in a traditional family, and don't tell me traditional families are more loving.

Of course I think love is more important - but as dazzleman said we're talking trends. A single parent/two same-sex parent family that loves and cares for the child is superior to a traditional family structure in which the child is nobody cares about the child. All I'm saying is that in many cases, alternative family structures, particularly single-parent ones, are unstable not because of the structure itself, but the reasons that the family attained that structure - for instance a deadbeat dad running off, or a nasty and emotional divorce, can seriously destabilize the environment for the child, which can cause serious problems.

[phk]

On the whole, traditional families are better than alternative families. 

Is every traditional family better than every alternative family?  No.  But on average, traditional families get better results.

I would agree with this, mainly just because traditional families just tend to have more stable environments. Stability is a very important factor in raising a child, and the reason many non-traditional family units gain their structure is because of some largely destabilizing factor.

You don't think love is more important than having a "traditional" family, and what makes you think that a traditional family creates a more stable children? There could be no love in a traditional family, and don't tell me traditional families are more loving.

You're in denial of reality, and simply mouthing politically correct propaganda.

Is every traditional family better than every alternative family?  No, of course not.  But we're talking trends here.  Traditional families, with a mother and father happily married to each other, are the most stable environment for raising kids.  Other types of families are generally not as good.

Are you familiar with the statistics on the outcomes of raising kids in alternative families?  Children from single parent homes perform worse in school, girls from these homes are more likely to get pregnant as teenagers, and about 75% of those in prison are from single parent homes.

The explosion of single parent homes is a calamity, and the segments of society that have had the greatest explosion have also fared the worst socially and economically.

These are simply undeniable facts that no amount of political correctness can cover up.

The irony of single-parent homes is that they usually originate from traditional family structures failing. Whats the alternative when this happens? Nothing really, you either go to a single-family structure or bust.

Conservatives will probably be Politically Correct and say that single-parent homes don't originate from failing traditional family structures, but they largely do.  Maybe not all the time, but most of the time, and we have to find the flaw that causes traditional structures to breakdown.  In that sense, an alternative arrangement from the get-go would probably end up better than a failed traditional family setup.

I believe what is being asked "alternative" rather meaning "alternative" from the get-go, not a traditional family breaking down.

[opebo]

Families are almost always painful and angst ridden.  Probably the only way to avoid this is through wealth, and in particular independent means for the offspring.

[phk]

Letting kids be independent and and showing them things like self-reliance and self-sufficiency early on is my way.

Better them out, than something breaking down.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Would a family where the mother worked and the father stayed home be considered "traditional".

I can understand the advantages of a family where only one parent worked over other less-"traditional" structures, but I don't see why it matters which parent this is.

[Beet]

Would a family where the mother worked and the father stayed home be considered "traditional".

I can understand the advantages of a family where only one parent worked over other less-"traditional" structures, but I don't see why it matters which parent this is.

I'm a BIG supporter of the "traditional" family but I define "traditionally" more broadly than either J.R. or NickG, to include a two-parent family where both parents work. Besides the mere structure of the family, however, it should also be a "functional" family, and let us not confuse functionality with structure when the two are not inherently tied to one another.

[dazzleman]

Would a family where the mother worked and the father stayed home be considered "traditional".

I can understand the advantages of a family where only one parent worked over other less-"traditional" structures, but I don't see why it matters which parent this is.

I'm a BIG supporter of the "traditional" family but I define "traditionally" more broadly than either J.R. or NickG, to include a two-parent family where both parents work. Besides the mere structure of the family, however, it should also be a "functional" family, and let us not confuse functionality with structure when the two are not inherently tied to one another.

My definition of a traditional family is a mother and father, married to each other, raising their children together.

Whether both parents work, or one or the other works, is irrelevant in my opinion.  Therefore, I would include families where both parents work under my definition of traditional families, as long as the family consists of the children's mother and father married to each other.

Non-working mothers are not necessarily traditional, unless you don't go back more than 70 or 80 years.  As far as work is concerned, we have gone through a cycle in which work and home were at first closely connected (during the agricultural era), then became highly separated (during the industrial era), but now are becoming more closely connected again, with better communication and more work-at-home arrangements that make it less necessary to physically be in a certain place to do your job.

What all this means is that during the agricultural era, everybody in the family "worked" in what amounted to the family business.  Back then, before modern conveniences, it took a huge amount of work just to deal with the necessities of keeping clothes clean (without washing machines), food prepared (without refrigeration), etc.  All these things were the mother's job, though she often had help with them, and they kept the family going so that the father could work in the fields, something that the mother sometimes helped with also.  There was little separation between work and family life in these circumstances, and the children were under the supervision of either parent while the parents worked.

As the industrial era dawned, and people left farming in large numbers, work began to require people to leave their homes for many hours a day, and to be away from their children.  There were still many things to be done around the home, so the arrangement of father works/mother stays home was born.  The mother did not stay at home necessarily to take care of the kids, primarily, but to do the heavy work necessary to keep the home functioning, though being home made the mother available to look after the kids.

By the middle of the 20th century, it was becoming easier and easier, with the development of labor saving machines and refrigeration, to do the work necessary to run a home.  This shifted the focus of mothers who stayed at home, from performing the work necessary to run the home to looking after her children.  Children became the focus of the stay-at-home mother for the first time.  While previously, the mother was around the children, and the children when old enough were expected to help the mother with the work around the house, at this point it shifted so that the mother was more working for the children. 
This is how it remains today, incidentally, whether or not the mother works outside the home.  Rather than being an asset to help with the farmwork, as children were during the agricultural era, they became a large burden and expense, both in terms of money and parental attention.

As women who were staying home acquired more free time, they started to think a lot about their position in society vis-a-vis the men, and found their position wanting.  Not having had the responsibility of going to work every day in a more structured and formally demanding environment, they were unable to reasonably evaluate the disadvantages that came with that role, and overly glamorized the idea of having a "career" as men supposedly have (though not every man has a "career," some only have jobs).

At the same time, feminist women devalued the contributions that women were making at home, and urged women to leave the home without making any real provision for how the work women did in the home would be completed in a mother's absence.  In addition, they encouraged the notion that a woman should be able, at the same time, to work, singlehandedly support her children, and singlehandedly raise her children.

Women who followed this feminist advice fully are generally miserable, and the results of it are deadly.  The reality is that one person really can't work and have the whole job for raising kids, and the kids raised in such circumstances are lacking in parental guidance and attention, as well as on the financial side usually.  Predictably, feminists blame men for this situation, and while men play a role in individual situations, it was feminist women who advanced this model of family life on a broad basis.  They effectively want the man's support for a family without him actually being present, something which is not really possible.

More recently, things have started to come full circle, with the growth of less traditional work arrangements.  With better communication and looser organizational structures, it is now less important to physically be present in an office to do a job.  Many people are working from home, at least some of the time, and these people are disproportionately women.  Many women are starting up businesses from the home to allow them to be around their kids more.  The difference from agricultural times is that these arrangements don't allow women to involve their children in their work, but they at least allow the mother to be nearby, and get rid of commuting and things like that that take up additional time.

So I guess this was the long was of saying a family can be a traditional family if both parents work.  It is up to each family to establish a work-family balance, and most two-parent families do, usually but not always opting to have the woman participate to a lesser degree in the labor force than the man.  This explains the wage gap for women; it is largely voluntary and related to choices made in family life. 

With single parent families, all the balances and supports are missing, and it's very hard to do the job right.  Plus, even a single parent who was given an adequate income really couldn't do the job right, because it requires both a male and female perspective.

[David S]

Families are almost always painful and angst ridden. 

Wow!!

[Beet]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I agree with your analysis up to here. Below this point, you begin to go into normative theorizing and I'm not surprised to disagree with you about the results.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I disagree on a number of counts here, but first of all I separate myself from 'feminists' who encourage the single-parent home. Personally I have never encountered anyone who would encourage such an arrangement, I have only heard from others that there are those who do. So forgive me if I call myself a feminist while supporting the father-and-mother two parent situation.

1. The essence of feminism is equal rights regardless of gender, and everything about feminism can be boiled down to that one basic principle; every question about a feminist position can be explained by going back to that one value.

2. Feminists by no means support the idea that women should be singlehandedly raising their children. In fact, they deplore the unequal expectations placed on women that demand from them all the responsibilities of rearing children while demanding nothing from the father, and blame them whenever a problem with a child comes up while absolving the father. They seek to re-connect the father with the family and even through the notion of the stay-at-home dad being an option.

3. Rather than "glamourizing" the workplace, feminists analyzed the power structure of society and correctly identified, among many, many, other things, the value of financial independence. Without such independence on the part of one partner, the other partner is entirely dominant in the relationship because the woman cannot possibly detach herself without losing financial support. Now, I am no supporter of alimony, but financial self-determination is essential in the modern world for any person to be safe from coercion.

4. As for "making any real provision for how the work women did in the home" would be done, you've already explained this quite well. After the agricultural era but especially during the 1950s, the amount of work demand to women in the home dropped precipitously, to the extent that women were essentially a labor force without a task (Meanwhile, the nature of the work outside the home became much less back-breaking or labor intensive). This was time that needed to be filled, and feminist theory came along at a propitious moment to fill it. Doing so meant no difference in the amount of mother-child contact compared to the original agricultural age.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If you were talking about single-parent homes, I think that applies equally to those headed by men and women and have nothing to do with gender. But as you are talking about gender, the experience of millions would indicate that women are happier having a choice of what to do with their lives without undue burdens or expectations from society, which are unreasonable except perhaps in the very stages of infancy, and that the equal ability of women within a working family to find careers has helped them a great deal. And I think the vast majority of women would agree.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Overall Dazzleman, these are very insightful comments. We agree on the same basic conclusions, even though we have different normative reactions to feminism. As for the latter, great strides have been made, but these are vulnerable strides, and there is still a societal disadvantage to being a woman in society overall. Given the strides that have been made in the past, it is not impossible that with some period of societal push towards equality, feminism will no longer be needed as substantive equality has been reached. While we are closer to that point, we are not there yet, and progress seems to have stalled of late.

[dazzleman]

thefactor:

I strongly disagree with you that equality is the main goal of feminism.  It may have been at one time, but the goal of feminism now is to advantage women over men in every possible way, and therefore promote inequality for men.

I'm surprised you can say that you have only heard from other people about feminists encouraging single parent homes, implying that they don't really exist.  I can't believe you haven't heard various feminists say that women don't need a man to raise kids, and that society should somehow reinvent itself to provide all sorts of supports to women who choose to raise children outside of traditional families, and can't hack it as a result.

In a strictly mercenary and practical sense, you are right about financial self-determination.  But what you are saying is that a woman who doesn't work will as a matter of course have no power in her relationship with her husband.  I have seen too many examples to the contrary to really believe this; I think it depends on the sort of marriage a person has.

I also think you are way off when you talk about women being happier if they can live their lives "without undue burdens or expectations from society."  Feminism has simply replaced one set of burdens and expectations with a different set.  And men still labor under a large set of burdens and expectations, that feminists refuse to recognize even exist.  So I think your belief that feminism has really liberated women is very naive.

I also don't think you're correct in saying that feminism returns the mother-child relationship to what it was in the agricultural era.  The big difference is that while in the agricultural era, the child was not the focus of the mother's attention at all times, the mother was still in reasonable proximity to the child, while feminism in an industrial society context generally means that the mother is absent most of the time, and the child is mostly being raised by strangers, paid the minimum wage.

I also think you're way off in saying that previously, fathers had no responsibility for raising children, and were absolved of any blame for problems with children.  This is absolutely untrue, and I think you're buying a little too much into feminist propaganda here.  The father's role has always been different, as it should be, but fathers have always been expected to play some role in raising their kids, and have always been thought less of if their kids turned out poorly.  I would go so far to say that one of the most destructive effects of feminism itself has been to water down the responsibility of fatherhood through overemphasis on the idea that children belong only to the mother, as evidenced by the feminist position on abortion, child custody, etc.

When it comes to work-family balance, I think a lot of it comes down to personality.  Everybody has a different preference for how to raise their kids, and spend their time.  Some women find it very difficult to work and raise their kids properly, especially if they have a demanding job.  Others can't stand staying at home.  I think the decisions that a couple makes are their own business, as long as they don't ask others to subsidize the results of their decisions.

And that is the problem I have with alternative families.  Almost by definition, they are unable to stand on their own and require extra support.  Even their supporters tacitly admit this.  I think it's bad social policy to encourage the creation of families that are not self-sustaining.

[phk]

"Alternative" families don't spontaneously generate, they are the products of traditional families that failed.

[Beet]

dazzleman,

Overall I think we've identified our points of agreement and disagreement. Simply, society as a whole, including women, have benefitted from allowing women greater freedom and equality to pursue financial independence and contribute to society outside the home. Children have also benefitted through a bettering of their family's financial situation. While there are exceptions, such as the unfortunate single-parent home, I would argue that a type of feminism that tries to tie the number of parents to the theory is wrong, so we would be in agreement here. Mostly, the single parent home is a separate problem caused by lack of social capital. In addition, most variables of family success are determined by functionality and not structure. There are even successful single-parent families, so functionality, which is usually highlyed tied to SES status and contextual/educational quality of the parents, is the final variable here. Religiousity and strength of culture are also important.

With regard to families standing on their own, I see no problem to government aid to families, no matter what type, as long as it does not encourage breakdowns in functionality. For example, social security and medicaid have done a great deal of good. However I do not support government propping up single parenthood.

[dazzleman]

dazzleman,

Overall I think we've identified our points of agreement and disagreement. Simply, society as a whole, including women, have benefitted from allowing women greater freedom and equality to pursue financial independence and contribute to society outside the home. Children have also benefitted through a bettering of their family's financial situation. While there are exceptions, such as the unfortunate single-parent home, I would argue that a type of feminism that tries to tie the number of parents to the theory is wrong, so we would be in agreement here. Mostly, the single parent home is a separate problem caused by lack of social capital. In addition, most variables of family success are determined by functionality and not structure. There are even successful single-parent families, so functionality, which is usually highlyed tied to SES status and contextual/educational quality of the parents, is the final variable here. Religiousity and strength of culture are also important.

With regard to families standing on their own, I see no problem to government aid to families, no matter what type, as long as it does not encourage breakdowns in functionality. For example, social security and medicaid have done a great deal of good. However I do not support government propping up single parenthood.

I'm not convinced that working mothers have improved family finances.  Two-income families have driven up the prices of expensive budget items like housing.  I'd also say that a minimal amount of parental attention is more important than a lot of material goods.  Kids today have too many material goods, and not enough positive attention from their parents.

I think that family functionality is tied to structure.  While there can be dysfunctionality with any structure, certain structures make functionality more difficult.

I think much of government "aid" to families has contributed to a breakdown in functionality.  In addition, I don't think we should encourage the formation of family units that can't stand on their own.  If everybody needs aid, who is going to provide it?  We sometimes punish people who do the right thing, in order to reward those who do not.  That is how most government programs work in practice, whatever their good intentions may be out the outset.

I think society needs a certain percentage of stay-at-home parents, who make contributions to society through the extra time that they have.  This includes volunteering in the community, doing work for the school, etc.  These parents often do the things that working parents don't have time to do, things that need to be done but are not economically rewarding and never can be.

[nclib]

What's more important, a traditional family accepted by society and defined as the only true family by the moral right, in which father goes to work and mother stays home with kids, but there is no love in that family or a non-traditional family built on love and trust.

Essentially I am asking if a having a traditional family defined by the norms of society and the Christian Coalition is more important than having a family no matter how strange it may be built on love and trust? Which is more important to you and why?

Of course love and trust are more important than preserving the traditional family. Depending on how a 'traditional' family is defined, some aspects are good and some are not. The important thing is to preserve positive traditions and to correct negative traditions. However, most traditions really depend on each individual family as to whether they are ideal or not.

As far as feminism is concerned, it has undoubtedly given women (and men) more choices. Contrary to popular opinion, feminists do not automatically frown upon women who choose to stay at home.

[Jake]

It's utterly impossible for a family without a male parent and a female parent to function normally. The worst abnormal two parent family type is one with gay parents, because the kid is screwed from the get go socially.

[opebo]

It's utterly impossible for a family without a male parent and a female parent to function normally. The worst abnormal two parent family type is one with gay parents, because the kid is screwed from the get go socially.

No, intolerants such as yourself accomplish any negative social impact, not the sexuality of the parents.

[J.R. Brown]

dazzleman,

Overall I think we've identified our points of agreement and disagreement. Simply, society as a whole, including women, have benefitted from allowing women greater freedom and equality to pursue financial independence and contribute to society outside the home. Children have also benefitted through a bettering of their family's financial situation. While there are exceptions, such as the unfortunate single-parent home, I would argue that a type of feminism that tries to tie the number of parents to the theory is wrong, so we would be in agreement here. Mostly, the single parent home is a separate problem caused by lack of social capital. In addition, most variables of family success are determined by functionality and not structure. There are even successful single-parent families, so functionality, which is usually highlyed tied to SES status and contextual/educational quality of the parents, is the final variable here. Religiousity and strength of culture are also important.

With regard to families standing on their own, I see no problem to government aid to families, no matter what type, as long as it does not encourage breakdowns in functionality. For example, social security and medicaid have done a great deal of good. However I do not support government propping up single parenthood.

I'm not convinced that working mothers have improved family finances.  Two-income families have driven up the prices of expensive budget items like housing.  I'd also say that a minimal amount of parental attention is more important than a lot of material goods.  Kids today have too many material goods, and not enough positive attention from their parents.

I think that family functionality is tied to structure.  While there can be dysfunctionality with any structure, certain structures make functionality more difficult.

I think much of government "aid" to families has contributed to a breakdown in functionality.  In addition, I don't think we should encourage the formation of family units that can't stand on their own.  If everybody needs aid, who is going to provide it?  We sometimes punish people who do the right thing, in order to reward those who do not.  That is how most government programs work in practice, whatever their good intentions may be out the outset.

I think society needs a certain percentage of stay-at-home parents, who make contributions to society through the extra time that they have.  This includes volunteering in the community, doing work for the school, etc.  These parents often do the things that working parents don't have time to do, things that need to be done but are not economically rewarding and never can be.

Would it matter which spouse stays home? Do you believe that the actual structure of the family creates an environment in which love and trust are more easily attained? Also, do you think that different family structures work better for different personalities?

[John Dibble]

It's utterly impossible for a family without a male parent and a female parent to function normally.

No Jake, you're wrong. After my father died, my single mother was able to raise me just fine, thank you very much.