Many people in many countries - including America! - still choose to live with their extended families even when they are not economically required to do so. Most people enjoy being around their extended families. In some countries (especially in asia and the middle east) doing so is the social norm, and a parent/child nuclear unit that intentionally isolated itself from the extended family would be seen as bad and weird
In America, the norm is to live separately from the extended family.
I don't know many adults that want to live with their extended family if they don't have to. This doesn't mean they don't enjoy their company.
Did you read the Atlantic article (written by CONSERVATIVE columnist David Brooks) you posted on this thread?
In 1850s, 3/4 of Americans over 65 lived with their children. Nuclear family did not become majority until 1920s.
Living with your nuclear family and gathering with your extended family isn't "anti-family".
If you asked people who live in a crowded house with extended family if they'd rather do it the American way I'd wager most of them would say yes.
BLM's problem with the nuclear family is that they suck at it.
They have similar problems with mathematics and standardized testing and a million other things.
The nuclear family has been the norm for eons. The Greeks and Romans and even the Sumerians preferred the nuclear family.
So what you're saying is that you think family is really important but that too much family is bad? And thus it's foolish and destructive to encourage or even support any other sort of family structure, even if that support could eventually help those non-nuclear families become nuclear and stable again?
These people lived together out of financial necessity. The nuclear family was the norm in their home countries.
Well thankfully they finally fixed that problem! Who knows where America would have ended up if people had been stuck living with their grandparents. Get those smelly old folks into a rest home, ughh
Living with your nuclear family and gathering with your extended family isn't "anti-family".
If you asked people who live in a crowded house with extended family if they'd rather do it the American way I'd wager most of them would say yes.
BLM's problem with the nuclear family is that they suck at it.
They have similar problems with mathematics and standardized testing and a million other things.
The nuclear family has been the norm for eons. The Greeks and Romans and even the Sumerians preferred the nuclear family.
So what you're saying is that you think family is really important but that too much family is bad? And thus it's foolish and destructive to encourage or even support any other sort of family structure, even if that support could eventually help those non-nuclear families become nuclear and stable again?
Anyone who says they love their cousins or nephews as much as they love their child is lying or doesn't have children.
The nuclear family is the ideal.
A 2 parent home is better for a child than a 1 parent home.
If you can't have that an active and present extended family is better than no extended family.
Anyone who says they love their cousins or nephews as much as they love their child is lying or doesn't have children.
The nuclear family is the ideal.
A 2 parent home is better for a child than a 1 parent home.
If you can't have that an active and present extended family is better than no extended family.
Why is a two-parent household better than a household with two parents and a grandparent or an uncle? How much does each successive family member bring the houshold down?
Anyone who says they love their cousins or nephews as much as they love their child is lying or doesn't have children.
The nuclear family is the ideal.
A 2 parent home is better for a child than a 1 parent home.
If you can't have that an active and present extended family is better than no extended family.
Why is a two-parent household better than a household with two parents and a grandparent or an uncle? How much does each successive family member bring the houshold down?
You're forgetting that you're arguing the BLM position which is built on the absence of the father not being a bad thing.
The more support a parent has the merrier. But BLM is only attacking the nuclear family because it hardly exists in the black community.
You're forgetting that you're arguing the BLM position which is built on the absence of the father not being a bad thing.
The more support a parent has the merrier. But BLM is only attacking the nuclear family because it hardly exists in the black community.
No one thinks single parenthood is desirable. If you have a source that says otherwise, I would love to see it! The article you posted explicitly lists the absence of a father as a bad thing
David Brooks wrote:
We all know stable and loving single-parent families. But on average, children of single parents or unmarried cohabiting parents tend to have worse health outcomes, worse mental-health outcomes, less academic success, more behavioral problems, and higher truancy rates than do children living with their two married biological parents.
The point of the article is that having an extended family can help make up for the lack of said father
David Brooks wrote:
Extended families have two great strengths. The first is resilience. An extended family is one or more families in a supporting web. Your spouse and children come first, but there are also cousins, in-laws, grandparents—a complex web of relationships among, say, seven, 10, or 20 people. If a mother dies, siblings, uncles, aunts, and grandparents are there to step in. If a relationship between a father and a child ruptures, others can fill the breach. Extended families have more people to share the unexpected burdens—when a kid gets sick in the middle of the day or when an adult unexpectedly loses a job.
You agree with the above statement - see the following quote
adult in the room wrote:
If you can't have that an active and present extended family is better than no extended family.
There is no attack on the nuclear family. You are making an enormous rhetorical misread by perceiving the argument "extended familes can help support nuclear families when they break down" as the statement "nuclear families are bad" and it's quite clear that you are either intentionally misreading the argument or are intelletually incapable of reading it properly
This whole debate is stupid. Who out there is railing against the idea of extended family members helping parents raise their children?
Besides, isn't it leftist environmentalists who think people shouldn't be having kids to save the planet? Can't have extended family support systems if you don't have kids and create families.
Removing the stigma on single motherhood is no different than removing the stigma on obesity.
When you normalize bad things you get more of them.
Removing a stigma is not the same thing as attacking the nuclear family. No one is under the impression that single parenthood is a desirable arrangement, but labeling single parents as moral failures is only going to isolate them from their communities and ensure that they stay single parents. What would your suggestion be to a person who finds themselves parenting alone - say, a widower, or an abuse victim? "well I guess you're screwed! git gud kid"
Removing the stigma on single motherhood is no different than removing the stigma on obesity.
When you normalize bad things you get more of them.
Removing a stigma is not the same thing as attacking the nuclear family. No one is under the impression that single parenthood is a desirable arrangement, but labeling single parents as moral failures is only going to isolate them from their communities and ensure that they stay single parents. What would your suggestion be to a person who finds themselves parenting alone - say, a widower, or an abuse victim? "well I guess you're screwed! git gud kid"
The notion that the majority of broken homes in America are widowers or abuse victims is absolute nonsense.
This is akin to pretending that the majority of abortions are for rape or incest.
The notion that the majority of broken homes in America are widowers or abuse victims is absolute nonsense.
This is akin to pretending that the majority of abortions are for rape or incest.
I totally agree, but that's not an answer to my question. What would you say to them? Do you think they should receive the same single-parent stigma? And do you think they should be eligible for govt assistance? If so, do you think that govt assistance should only be extended to victims of tragedies or violent crimes?