The Family

[Sacrificial anode]

For the purpose of this discussion, let us assume that all sexual attraction is heterosexual, just to keep it simple.

Is the Western model of the family fatally flawed?

What are the major problems associated with the traditional family unit?

Would polygamy and polyandry solve many of these problems? If yes, would polygamy and polyandry further degrade society into a dog-eat-dog world, or would it bring us closer to a utopia?

Does it take a village, or a family, to raise a child?

 

[savvy]

I think it is good to have multiple people helping to care for a child, especially since in this day and age parents have so much they need to do. However, I think multiple romantic relationships just leads to jealousy and all kinds of problems that would complicate a family infrastructure. I think it's good when extended family help one another with children.

 

[Fuzzy]

Is the Western model of the family fatally flawed?

I assume you mean the "nuclear" model of
husband, wife, and 2.5 kids.

I don't think that model is as viable as it used to be, due to the increased
demand for both parents to have incomes to keep up with housing costs,
insurance costs, and education costs. Do, yeah, eventually that model
will be completely useless.

 

[Buzz Dixon]

In the classic New Wave sci-fi anthology, DANGEROUS VISIONS, Theodore Sturgeon wrote a short story called "If All Men Were Brothers Would You Let Your Sister Marry One?"


The title pretty much sums up the premise.

 

[Freodin]

The major problem with this "traditional family unit" is that it isn´t traditional at all.

For most of history as well as pre-history, humans lived in clan groups. This "nucleus" family is a result of the last century.

 

[Sacrificial anode]

I think it is good to have multiple people helping to care for a child, especially since in this day and age parents have so much they need to do.

So it's good to have multiple helping hands as opposed to one or two parents sharing the entire burden?

However, I think multiple romantic relationships just leads to jealousy and all kinds of problems that would complicate a family infrastructure. I think it's good when extended family help one another with children.

Automatically leads to it, or could lead to it?

 

[Sacrificial anode]

I assume you mean the "nuclear" model of
husband, wife, and 2.5 kids.

Husband and wife. Number of kids doesn't matter.

I don't think that model is as viable as it used to be, due to the increased
demand for both parents to have incomes to keep up with housing costs,
insurance costs, and education costs. Do, yeah, eventually that model
will be completely useless.

Hmm. Economic reasons for not being viable.

 

[Sacrificial anode]

The major problem with this "traditional family unit" is that it isn´t traditional at all.

For most of history as well as pre-history, humans lived in clan groups. This "nucleus" family is a result of the last century.

Oh wow. 'Twould be a return to our roots, then?

 

[Freodin]

Oh wow. 'Twould be a return to our roots, then?

No. The old clan structures (we call it "Großfamilie = great family" in German) are no longer feasable in our world.
They disolved for a reason - several reasons indeed.

But it is a fact that these "nucleus families" are not capable of providing the support systems that are so helpful for raising children, especially in the economical situation prevalent in the "western" world.

There are several way that this situation can be/will be solved. I don´t know whether polygamy is one of these solutions, but to keep the "man-woman-child" family as the Ultima Ratio, and just wondering where all the problems come from, is just ignoring the true problems.

 

[Fuzzy]

Husband and wife. Number of kids doesn't matter.

Hmm. Economic reasons for not being viable.

If it's just husband and wife, and assuming they both work, that's not going too be much different from two single people.

Let's say the household expenses for the "family" are...

$600 a month housing
$200 a month utilities
$500 a month on car expenses (car note, gas, maintenance)
$100 a month per person food expenses. (2 people = 200)
$200 a month savings for "old age."

Now, assume husband makes $30,000 a year from his job, which breaks
down to $2500 a month. Wife stays home.

2500 - 500 (income tax) - 100 (health insurance) gives us a take home
of 1900 per month.

1900 - 1700 = 200 net per month to do whatever with. Save it, spend it
on the lotto, whattever.

Now, add in a kid, and we'll assume the costs of a kid are another $100 for
food, another $100 to the insurance premium.

Net income drops to $1800. Expenses increase to $1800. The family is still
socking away $200 a month for retirement.

Add another kid. Insurance premium stays the same, but now, assuming the
parents want to keep that retirement account going, the expenses are
at $1900. More than they make. And that $600 a month housing covers a
small apartment or a house, but the place may not be big enough any more
for two adults and two growing kids.

S, the other parent goes out and gets a job, which means its own
transportation expenses, but the insurance coverage from Parent A is still
enough to cover all of them. So Parent A brings home $1800 per month,
Parent B brings home $2000 a month.

3800 (net income)
-1000 (mortgage on larger home)
-300 (utilities)
-700 (car expenses)
-400 (food for four)
-200 (retirement account)

That's 1200 a month net, but Mom's out of the house, and it doesn't allow for
college savings, clothing costs, car insurance, or any of the "one time"
emergency purchases. Let's add another $300 for car insurance on both
vehicles, with more than the bare minimum. That knocks us down to $900
a month net. Add another kid. That leaves us $800, three kids, no savings
yet for college. So. the parents switch some numbers to sock away $200
per kid for college, raise the retirement savings to $300 a month. They're
still netting $100 a month.

Now, here's the problem. There's no day care cost in any of those numbers,
and that could easily run a couple hundred, which could be negated by
spending the retirment fund. Or, on the other hand, the couple becomes
a triad, with two parents working, that last $100 goes to feed the new
parent, and there's someone at home taking care of the kids. With that
third parent, the working parents can work overtime (whereas before, since
they weren't covering day care, they were on the same schedule as the kids)
and get the promotion for the better job, with more pay.

 

[Sacrificial anode]

No. The old clan structures (we call it "Großfamilie = great family" in German) are no longer feasable in our world.
They disolved for a reason - several reasons indeed.

But it is a fact that these "nucleus families" are not capable of providing the support systems that are so helpful for raising children, especially in the economical situation prevalent in the "western" world.

There are several way that this situation can be/will be solved. I don´t know whether polygamy is one of these solutions, but to keep the "man-woman-child" family as the Ultima Ratio, and just wondering where all the problems come from, is just ignoring the true problems.

Right, so the nucleus family doesn't work. But what does?

 

[Freodin]

Right, so the nucleus family doesn't work. But what does?

That´s a very good question.

The only answer I can give is: I don´t know. There is no theoretical way to "know" - only if we were able to experiment would it be possible to find out if certain solutions were better at giving the results we desire.

But that is not possible as long as some people denigrate any possible structure other than this "nucleus family" as sinful or blasphemous.


My personal proposal for a solution would be the formation of something like an adoption great family: groups of people who voluntarily formed a "community" and treated that as on the same level as blood-relation.

Would it work? Again: I don´t know. But it could work.

 

[Sacrificial anode]

That´s a very good question.

The only answer I can give is: I don´t know. There is no theoretical way to "know" - only if we were able to experiment would it be possible to find out if certain solutions were better at giving the results we desire.

But that is not possible as long as some people denigrate any possible structure other than this "nucleus family" as sinful or blasphemous.


My personal proposal for a solution would be the formation of something like an adoption great family: groups of people who voluntarily formed a "community" and treated that as on the same level as blood-relation.

Would it work? Again: I don´t know. But it could work.

Perhaps the Jewish kibbutz?

 

[jesusfreak3786]

Well a good answer to all that would be self sufficiancey not with money, but lets say a farm, no electicity, no indoor pluming, you know the way things used to be, without technolagy. Families used to stay together generation after generation. There was no need for nursing homes since the family took care of the family. I think the problem with the modern day family is just that, modernism.

 

[Sacrificial anode]

So technology is the problem?

 

[David Gould]

Perhaps the Jewish kibbutz?

The kibbutz system ultimately failed. There was a general move to couples looking after their biological children. I am unsure of the reasons for this, though.

 

[David Gould]

The kibbutz experiment in Israel, at its outset, attempted to ensure that children were brought up communally, i.e. not in nuclear family units. This had the unexpected side-effect that children of the kibbutz all tended to treat each other as siblings, and not as potential partners, as they grew up. They therefore sought partners outside of the kibbutz and tended to leave to form nuclear families of their own. The kibbutz therefore failed as a social experiment in this respect because it was not self-perpetuating.

This is different to what I thought about the failure of the kibbutz.

Taken from:

http://www.masterliness.com/a/Nuclear.family.htm

 

[bliz]

My personal proposal for a solution would be the formation of something like an adoption great family: groups of people who voluntarily formed a "community" and treated that as on the same level as blood-relation.

Would it work? Again: I don´t know. But it could work.

Where I live, I see a number of these. Several small churches in my area function very much like that. They watch each other's kids - both in and out of church, they help with major household projects, and in times of illness, birth and death as well as celebrations. They are usually together in groups of 2 or 3 families on Sundays after church till evening. Some vacation together and own property (lawn mowers, campers, camping equiptment, ladders) in common.

I also see it in a neighborhood near where I live. It is a somewhat isolated community, primarily Africian American, from different churches, and unchurched, but these folks take care of one another! A friend of mine in social services has told me that she has never had to make an emergency visit in that neighborhood, even though many people there are elderly and/or live alone.

I'd surprised if this isn't happening on a broader scale.

 

[Sacrificial anode]

This is different to what I thought about the failure of the kibbutz.

Taken from:

http://www.masterliness.com/a/Nuclear.family.htm

Wow. So the sociological conditions were satisfactory, but they wouldn't mate each other on account that they treated each other as siblings and not possible mates?

 

[seebs]

I think one thing that helps is some amount of load-sharing between families. The exact amount varies. But, frankly, I don't think I know ANY couples who have been able to start child-rearing without help from the grandparents!