The traditional family

[stevevw]

I work at my local community centre and see a lot of disadvantaged people. Many are single parents with young children who have experienced domestic violence. I think of the young children and the effect this has on them. Many single parents come in struggling to cope often in financial hardship and have problems with child behavior.

It got me thinking about the importance of the traditional family and how this is the basis for a healthy and happy society. The importance of a mother and father figure and how this influences child development especially for a secure attachment in the early years which research shows can determine how a child will turn out as an adult.

Since around the 50's and 60's governments have supported easy divorce along with a lack of support for helping couples to stay together which has led to many family breakdowns. Statistics show that children from broken families do worse across a range of measures such as education, physical and mental health and employment and are more likely to be associated with substance abuse and crime.

Economic policies in western societies has gradually undermined families where both parents have to work denying quality time with children and adding stress which leads to family breakups. Feminism was a reaction to male dominance but things have gone from one extreme to another where men are confused and demeaned and women have become preoccupied with careers and believe they don't need a man to have children and raise them.

This has resulted in a war of sexes undermining what are male and female roles. Modern society has seen a raft of measures associated with artificial child birth and non traditional child upbringing such as state run child care centres which has implications for the future well-being of children.

Some say that today's young people are less resilient and prepared for life. Many boys have missed the influence of a positive father figure and are open to be easily influenced. Many girls miss a loving father that helps them navigate relationships in life. They both miss the bonding of a loving care giver like a mother which is so vital for emotional development. It makes me wonder are we seeing the result of decades of policies that have undermined the family with the attitudes of young people and the way some children are behaving.

Some try to rationalize and justify that there is no problem and no such thing as a traditional family and that families come in all sorts of shapes and sizes to support their political agendas. For some a father or mothers role is irrelevant which could see these roles superseded in the near future. They use comparisons and stats which show how single parents, mixed families or same sex parents can do just as good a job if not better.

But I say that these examples while good are second best. There is no substitute for the traditional family and the roles of a father and mother in ensuring healthy and happy children, families and societies. It is no coincident that the breakdown of the traditional family coincides with the breakdown of our societies.

Father’s and Mother’s Roles and Their Particularities in Raising Children
It is not right to say that one parent is more important than another one, while the mother certainly has the most important role in children’s lives in the prenatal period, later on the fathers and the mother’s roles gradually balance. The particularity of both roles consist in the fact that a father with his highest effort is not able to provide what needs to be provided by a mother and vice versa. Each one of them has their own characteristics. "The father´s behaviour towards the mother is an open book of life experiences for both, a son and a daughter. He is a source of their thoughts about men. A good father is an ideal for his daughter and an example for his son." (Štrbová, 2004, p. 18). "A mother plays one of the most social roles and expressions of human towards human.
https://www.degruyter.com/downloadpdf/j/atd.2015.5.issue-1/atd-2015-0032/atd-2015-0032.pdf

Making The Case For Traditional Parenting
Making The Case For Traditional Parenting
It’s scientific: kids need not just two parents but a mother and father.
It’s scientific: kids need not just two parents but a mother and father.

 

[Aussie Pete]

I work at my local community centre and see a lot of disadvantaged people. Many are single parents with young children who have experienced domestic violence. I think of the young children and the effect this has on them. Many single parents come in struggling to cope often in financial hardship and have problems with child behavior.

It got me thinking about the importance of the traditional family and how this is the basis for a healthy and happy society. The importance of a mother and father figure and how this influences child development especially for a secure attachment in the early years which research shows can determine how a child will turn out as an adult.

Since around the 50's and 60's governments have supported easy divorce along with a lack of support for helping couples to stay together which has led to many family breakdowns. Statistics show that children from broken families do worse across a range of measures such as education, physical and mental health and employment and are more likely to be associated with substance abuse and crime.

Economic policies in western societies has gradually undermined families where both parents have to work denying quality time with children and adding stress which leads to family breakups. Feminism was a reaction to male dominance but things have gone from one extreme to another where men are confused and demeaned and women have become preoccupied with careers and believe they don't need a man to have children and raise them.

This has resulted in a war of sexes undermining what are male and female roles. Modern society has seen a raft of measures associated with artificial child birth and non traditional child upbringing such as state run child care centres which has implications for the future well-being of children.

Some say that today's young people are less resilient and prepared for life. Many boys have missed the influence of a positive father figure and are open to be easily influenced. Many girls miss a loving father that helps them navigate relationships in life. They both miss the bonding of a loving care giver like a mother which is so vital for emotional development. It makes me wonder are we seeing the result of decades of policies that have undermined the family with the attitudes of young people and the way some children are behaving.

Some try to rationalize and justify that there is no problem and no such thing as a traditional family and that families come in all sorts of shapes and sizes to support their political agendas. For some a father or mothers role is irrelevant which could see these roles superseded in the near future. They use comparisons and stats which show how single parents, mixed families or same sex parents can do just as good a job if not better.

But I say that these examples while good are second best. There is no substitute for the traditional family and the roles of a father and mother in ensuring healthy and happy children, families and societies. It is no coincident that the breakdown of the traditional family coincides with the breakdown of our societies.

Father’s and Mother’s Roles and Their Particularities in Raising Children
It is not right to say that one parent is more important than another one, while the mother certainly has the most important role in children’s lives in the prenatal period, later on the fathers and the mother’s roles gradually balance. The particularity of both roles consist in the fact that a father with his highest effort is not able to provide what needs to be provided by a mother and vice versa. Each one of them has their own characteristics. "The father´s behaviour towards the mother is an open book of life experiences for both, a son and a daughter. He is a source of their thoughts about men. A good father is an ideal for his daughter and an example for his son." (Štrbová, 2004, p. 18). "A mother plays one of the most social roles and expressions of human towards human.
https://www.degruyter.com/downloadpdf/j/atd.2015.5.issue-1/atd-2015-0032/atd-2015-0032.pdf

Making The Case For Traditional Parenting
Making The Case For Traditional Parenting
It’s scientific: kids need not just two parents but a mother and father.
It’s scientific: kids need not just two parents but a mother and father.

The emphasis on mothers as primary caregivers is relatively recent and a result of the industrial revolution. Work became separated from home life. Children would work in the fields with their families prior to the industrial society. It's not that long ago that child rearing books were addressed to men. I am not saying that the advice was correct, but it shows how times have changed.

The current role confusion has been an unmitigated disaster. Men are being regarded as criminals just for being men. Yes, I speak from experience. Society sees women are somehow morally superior. If you want to know why men resort to violence, the research is sobering. Many men feel totally disempowered, rejected, insulted and belittled. It's not just a feeling much of the time either. Men are not naturally nice and do not always look for a peaceful way out of a situation. Bitter, resentful men who have been unjustly treated are a dangerous mix, as way too many women have found out.

It's getting worse, not better. Since there are few consequences, child crime is on the rise. So the bleeding hearts want to raise the age that a child can be convicted of a crime. Well, build more adult prisons. They are already filling up fast.

 

[Silmarien]

Economic policies in western societies has gradually undermined families where both parents have to work denying quality time with children and adding stress which leads to family breakups.

This has been true for the non-wealthy since the Industrial Revolution (and before that, though as Aussie Pete has mentioned, work was not as sharply separated from home life before then). In the modern era, poor women have always had to work to help make ends meet for their family.

I don't see how stressing the traditional family is particularly helpful if the underlying issue is poverty.

 

[Rescued One]

I work at my local community centre and see a lot of disadvantaged people. Many are single parents with young children who have experienced domestic violence. I think of the young children and the effect this has on them. Many single parents come in struggling to cope often in financial hardship and have problems with child behavior...

One of my late sisters was a social worker in another state. She told me of a case where an abusive husband taught the couple's boys to be disrespectful and disobedient to their mother. The couple split and the mother was having a horrible time with the boys.

There are "traditional families" where both parents are not skilled in relationships. I'm glad my parents divorced in the fifties. I didn't have a rosy childhood anyways but my father was very verbally abusive and it stressed me a lot to be around him or to even talk to him on the phone. Sometimes people make terrible mistakes by staying married to an evil person such as another of my my sisters did (he was an abuser and a child molestor). There is so much evil in the world and I don't think it's going to go away.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Women can have children; men, naturally, cannot. In theory, anybody can work in a factory. But it takes a woman to give birth, naturally.

Men are more easily replaced than women. At least historically. But the advent of women working in professional workplaces has had the consequence (intended or unintended) of women abandoning a role only they can play.

As far as intelligence, there are more women of average IQ than there are men. There are more men on the Dummy and the Genius percentiles of IQ. Relatively fewer men are in the middle. And, as I say, a woman's intellect is concentrated closest to the median in IQ distribution.

What that means is that if IQ plays any role in career opportunities, women cannot go as far as men can. And once upon a time, that wasn't a problem since women could provide value through childbirth and childcare.

But putting men and women on a level playing field in the workplace only shows how level the playing field is not. Right now is usually when some pretentious columnist would say "... and there may be a price to pay for that".

But there IS a price to pay for that and American society pays through the nose every single day of every single year.

 

[ananda]

Even more traditional was the multi-generational home & family, where grandparents were included, along with parents and their children.

 

[Sketcher]

This has been true for the non-wealthy since the Industrial Revolution (and before that, though as Aussie Pete has mentioned, work was not as sharply separated from home life before then). In the modern era, poor women have always had to work to help make ends meet for their family.

I don't see how stressing the traditional family is particularly helpful if the underlying issue is poverty.

When unmarried couples shack up to cut out a rent payment, and when they break up again after having a few kids, that creates more instability for the kids. If traditional family values had been adhered to instead, then the kids would usually have a better home environment. The poor that don't live by those values need them.

 

[Paidiske]

Human beings are sinful, and that sin will find ways to be expressed no matter which family structure we inhabit. Every model we might aspire to, and every era we might hark back to as "traditional," has benefits and drawbacks. It's easy to talk about the evils of divorce; but there are other evils in a society where divorce is not an option, or is made extremely difficult.

I think looking at a sort of middle-class, post-industrial-revolution model where mum stays home and dad goes to work outside the home as if it is the answer to life, the universe, and everything, is pretty short-sighted, to be honest.

As a woman, I'm grateful for the opportunity to be educated, to work, to develop and use my gifts and talents, to make a contribution to society, and to have a measure of financial security. It's not that I "have" to work - we could be a single income household if we chose - but that it is better for me, and I will go so far as to say I am a better human being for working. (That is not a derogatory comment about stay-at-home parents, it's a reflection on my personal experience).

And, perhaps counter-intuitively, this has allowed my husband to play a larger role in parenting than many fathers do, which we have all experienced as a great blessing.

As for IQ in the workforce, IQ might play a role, but so do a whole host of other attributes; and even if it's true that in most situations, the job applicant with the highest IQ is a man (a claim I'd wonder about), women have certainly shown that we can contribute on our merits across the range of employment situations.

 

[FireDragon76]

Human beings are sinful, and that sin will find ways to be expressed no matter which family structure we inhabit. Every model we might aspire to, and every era we might hark back to as "traditional," has benefits and drawbacks. It's easy to talk about the evils of divorce; but there are other evils in a society where divorce is not an option, or is made extremely difficult.

There's a book called The Way We Never Were, written by a historian Stephanie Coontz.

https://www.amazon.com/Way-We-Never-Were-Nostalgia/dp/0465098835

Most of the stuff about "traditional families" is based on nostalgia and reactionary ideology. There were plenty of divorces and "broken homes" back in the day. My own grandfather was raised by his grandparents because his parents separated and his father ran off.

 

[FireDragon76]

This has been true for the non-wealthy since the Industrial Revolution (and before that, though as Aussie Pete has mentioned, work was not as sharply separated from home life before then). In the modern era, poor women have always had to work to help make ends meet for their family.

I don't see how stressing the traditional family is particularly helpful if the underlying issue is poverty.

You've really touched on an important point. Poor women have always had to do some kind of work to earn extra money. The stay-at-home mom was really a luxury of the middle and upper classes.

 

[Picky Pilot]

As long as we're talking about "Traditional Families" what about a "Non-Traditional Family" like ours?

My wife is in the last stages of Alzheimer's. Rather than sending her off to a memory care facility where she would sit with a bunch of people 20 years her senior, watch TV and die of boredom and a broken heart rather than the disease. I made her a promise that I'd care for her at home, even if it would mean higher costs for a live-in nurse.
At her suggestion, after losing all her friends, we reached out on a dating site and found our partner who lost her mother to Alzheimer's. (Ann, my wife, is in red)

We are a family of three loving hearts committed to making Ann's last years the best possible. We do everything together, shop, they go to a spa for a day. Hit the theme parks or go on a cruise. The people at hospice say she's the happiest person with Alzheimer's they've ever seen and that I'm the best caregiver they've ever met.

Accepted by our families, neighbors and, now, we no longer even raise eyebrows at our church.
(we're on fb as Bruce N Ann Williams)

 

[Silmarien]

When unmarried couples shack up to cut out a rent payment, and when they break up again after having a few kids, that creates more instability for the kids. If traditional family values had been adhered to instead, then the kids would usually have a better home environment. The poor that don't live by those values need them.

This seems like a chicken and the egg situation. If a poor couple can get along without serious problems despite their economic difficulties, then they're unlikely to break up afterwards. What you often see in these situations, however, is domestic violence, so the children aren't exactly being denied a positive home environment.

Anyway, I agree with @ananda. True traditional families include a larger safety net than just the immediate family, so that if things fall apart, single parents aren't on their own. (This is actually my situation--I grew up with my mother and her parents, and it was far more stable than having to deal with a father who couldn't handle the stresses of family life. Unfortunately, that isn't always an option either.)

 

[zippy2006]

True traditional families include a larger safety net than just the immediate family, so that if things fall apart, single parents aren't on their own.

Sure, but part of that safety net is economic, which helps to combat poverty.

 

[FireDragon76]

Sure, but part of that safety net is economic, which helps to combat poverty.

If traditional families really could effectively combat poverty, then places like Mexico or India would have no poor people.

I agree with Yuval Noah Harari that the traditional family is a weak institution, and isn't unproblematic. Families exert alot of coercive control that isn't always good . As @Silmarien pointed out, sometimes they can even be abusive.

 

[Ken-1122]

If traditional families really could effectively combat poverty, then places like Mexico or India would have no poor people.

No, it would just mean traditional families in places like Mexico or India are less poor than single parent households in Mexico or India

I agree with Yuval Noah Harari that the traditional family is a weak institution, and isn't unproblematic. Families exert alot of coercive control that isn't always good . As @Silmarien pointed out, sometimes they can even be abusive.

If the traditional family is a weak institution, single parenthood must be weaker. I used to work security at a night club and I can’t tell you how many times I would see single mothers going out to the club bringing home guys they barely knew, introducing them to their kids, (often these guys are abusive) then a few weeks later they break-up and it all starts over again. Again; if traditional families are a weak institution, single parenthood is even weaker.

 

[Quartermaine]

Women can have children; men, naturally, cannot. In theory, anybody can work in a factory. But it takes a woman to give birth, naturally.

Men are more easily replaced than women. At least historically. But the advent of women working in professional workplaces has had the consequence (intended or unintended) of women abandoning a role only they can play.

As far as intelligence, there are more women of average IQ than there are men. There are more men on the Dummy and the Genius percentiles of IQ. Relatively fewer men are in the middle. And, as I say, a woman's intellect is concentrated closest to the median in IQ distribution.

What that means is that if IQ plays any role in career opportunities, women cannot go as far as men can. And once upon a time, that wasn't a problem since women could provide value through childbirth and childcare.

But putting men and women on a level playing field in the workplace only shows how level the playing field is not. Right now is usually when some pretentious columnist would say "... and there may be a price to pay for that".

But there IS a price to pay for that and American society pays through the nose every single day of every single year.

An individual of either gender and and without regard to IQ would note that your strange ideas about IQ and career opportunity ignores the simple fact that while there may be a slight range difference between men and women on a standardized IQ test both the average and the mean IQ score for both genders is the same. Based simply on IQ men would not have an advantage in a level playing field workplace because for every man with a higher IQ there is also a man with a much lower IQ.

 

[thecolorsblend]

An individual of either gender and and without regard to IQ would note that your strange ideas about IQ and career opportunity ignores the simple fact that while there may be a slight range difference between men and women on a standardized IQ test both the average and the mean IQ score for both genders is the same. Based simply on IQ men would not have an advantage in a level playing field workplace because for every man with a higher IQ there is also a man with a much lower IQ.

The average IQ for women is higher than the average IQ for men. Male IQ exists in larger numbers at both far ends of the spectrum.

 

[Paidiske]

But IQ is irrelevant to getting most jobs. No employer I've ever had has asked about or tested my IQ. Provided you can function in the role, they're not going to care if one person's IQ is a bit higher than another's.

 

[Quartermaine]

But IQ is irrelevant to getting most jobs. No employer I've ever had has asked about or tested my IQ. Provided you can function in the role, they're not going to care if one person's IQ is a bit higher than another's.

Ultimately an IQ is only a measure of how well one performs on an IQ test

 

[muichimotsu]

When unmarried couples shack up to cut out a rent payment, and when they break up again after having a few kids, that creates more instability for the kids. If traditional family values had been adhered to instead, then the kids would usually have a better home environment. The poor that don't live by those values need them.

That makes it sound like this is primarily a problem with the impoverished rather than just those who have less responsibility (which can just as easily be those in privilege). Encouraging traditions shouldn't come at the expense of recognizing when said traditions are not necessarily relevant or applicable with new information and consideration.

The problem is more the sense of entitlement and living as if there are no consequences, which is naive even if you consider a world where there isn't a creator that's sovereign over things, because people suffer and that's unassailable fact in terms of basic empathy