The traditional family

[muichimotsu]

Sorry if it sounds that way but I am only citing the science. There is nothing like a mother child bond when the baby is first born and the mother holds the baby who intuitively knows its mother. This bond and attachment is important for the emotional, physical and psychological development of a child into adulthood. A father can also bond with a child but there is a special bond between a child and its mother.

The Scientific Reason the Mother-Child Bond Is So Powerful
It likely comes as no surprise to moms that they can literally feel everything their child is feeling—and now science can explain the reason why.
The Scientific Reason the Mother-Child Bond Is So Powerful
The New Science of Mother-Baby Bonding
Groundbreaking new parenting research shows that a strong emotional attachment between a mother and her baby may help prevent diseases, boost immunity, and enhance a child’s IQ
The New Science of Mother-Baby Bonding - Parenting
Baby-Mother Bonds Affect Future Adult Relationships, Study Finds
Baby-Mother Bonds Affect Future Adult Relationships, Study Finds | Live Science

That seems to suggest a child given up for adoption is worse off than a child who stays with their biological mother and that gets into a problematic notion that biological parents are somehow better than adoptive parents in forming those bonds

 

[mama2one]

Mothers and fathers should have an equal relationship with their children.

I don't know if the relationship can be equal as it is different with each parent

 

[Paidiske]

I also think "equal" relationships with both parents is a problematic idea. Not just because each parent is different, but each family dynamic is different.

When it comes to parenting, I'm better at the long-range strategic thinking, the planning, the anticipating needs and meeting them. Husband is unquestionably better at in-the-moment patience, fun, and spontaneity. That's not about gender or even roles, but nor is it "equal."

I think it's about being the best parenting team we can be, together.

 

[mama2one]

I think it's about being the best parenting team we can be, together.

I agree

each parent has their strengths and with two parents working as a team, the child gets the best of each

 

[FireDragon76]

The appeal to nature to justify ethics seems strange to me. Since when does what is natural make for what is good?

 

[Paidiske]

The appeal to nature to justify ethics seems strange to me. Since when does what is natural make for what is good?

Surely you realise there's a very long history of natural law ethics?

 

[muichimotsu]

The appeal to nature to justify ethics seems strange to me. Since when does what is natural make for what is good?

It's literally a fallacy, what exists in nature is not necessarily good and the incidental agreements we may have are probably more our anthropocentric bias, like how we'd assume a mother cat would take in puppies rather than it being explained by biology (she recently had kittens, for instance), unlike how some human females are willing to be wet nurses for children that aren't theirs because of higher brain functioning for humans to develop that kind of empathy.

 

[muichimotsu]

Surely you realise there's a very long history of natural law ethics?

Natural law is not the same as a law of nature, more that we can deduce it rationally, if I recall correctly. It's in the same vein as natural theology in the use of natural as something we can reason out ourselves, like how Deism says special revelation is unnnecessary for a belief in God

 

[FireDragon76]

Surely you realise there's a very long history of natural law ethics?

Yes... but I don't see it as unproblematic. You can't automatically derive an "ought" from an "is".

 

[Paidiske]

It goes beyond that, though. As far back as Aristotle, there's been a history of equating the "natural" with the "good" (for Aristotle this was about the telos of each being). In Christian thought, that goes further to being about conformity to God's good purposes in creation.

I also agree that this is not above criticism - not least because human ideas about what is "natural" are not necessarily complete or accurate - but it's hardly surprising to see it in play here.

 

[FireDragon76]

It goes beyond that, though. As far back as Aristotle, there's been a history of equating the "natural" with the "good" (for Aristotle this was about the telos of each being). In Christian thought, that goes further to being about conformity to God's good purposes in creation.

I also agree that this is not above criticism - not least because human ideas about what is "natural" are not necessarily complete or accurate - but it's hardly surprising to see it in play here.

Aristotle sounds a bit problematic in that he posits an eternal, unchanging order to nature.

I favor maximal freedom for human beings, as long as their behavior does not harm others. I do not believe in forcing or coercing people into a metaphysically-inspired box.

 

[stevevw]

I completely agree. A distinct male role, a distinct female role, a distinct role for children and a traditional family structure are simply God's plan for the human race, period. The Bible may reflect a patriarchal society, but there is nothing inherently "better" or "more important" about the male role in a traditional family; if anything, quite the opposite is true.

Unfortunately, over the past 75 years literally every societal trend has run counter to the traditional male and female roles and has contributed to the collapse of the traditional family structure. The extent to which society has eagerly drunk this fantastically destructive Kool Aid while calling it progress can only be explained in supernatural terms.

My wife spent the first several decades of her life in the Soviet Union. It's no accident that one of the Soviets' primary goals was the destruction of the traditional family. Male and female roles were blurred, children were raised in state institutions, and family loyalties were actively discouraged. What we have in the U.S. today exceeds the Soviets' wildest dreams.

Peoples views about what roles parents should play is largely governed by the society they live in. Most western nations now demand both parents to work to afford to live. But many do more than work to afford to live. An atheistic worldview sees this world as the be all and end all so people want to pursue material possessions as this is perceived as what will make people happy. So though some have to work to get by many choose to work to attain their wants beyond their needs and this can become all encompassing taking time away from family matters.

This is a catch 22 situation. But I think it is a matter of priorities. People can get by with relatively little if they want and don't have to have the 2 cars, big house, all the gadgets and other stuff. It is hard as the temptation is all around. But I think there has to be a balance. You often hear people say I should have spent more time with the kids instead of pursuing that promotion by taking on the demands of the company. Western cultures are individualistic so individual achievement becomes all important and at the cost of the family and group.

But the fact is the research shows that kids need time with their mothers and fathers especially the mother and that is not a patronizing thing but just how it is. Modern ideologies are determined to undermine the family and do away with the mother and father roles altogether. They can come up with exceptions and comparative examples of how families can function without a mum and dad and how traditional families can fail and this maybe the case. But optimally kids need their mum and dad and there is a difference between functioning and thriving which I believe requires a mum and dad.

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.

Nearly three decades of research evaluating the impact of family structure on the health and well-being of children demonstrates that children living with their married, biological parents consistently have better physical, emotional, and academic well-being. Pediatricians and society should promote the family structure that has the best chance of producing healthy children. The best scientific literature to date suggests that, with the exception of parents faced with unresolvable marital violence, children fare better when parents work at maintaining the marriage. Consequently, society should make every effort to support healthy marriages and to discourage married couples from divorcing.
The impact of family structure on the health of children: Effects of divorce

 

[FireDragon76]

Peoples views about what roles parents should play is largely governed by the society they live in. Most western nations now demand both parents to work to afford to live. But many do more than work to afford to live. An atheistic worldview sees this world as the be all and end all so people want to pursue material possessions as this is perceived as what will make people happy.

How is that a bad thing?

I see human desire itself as sacred, if it doesn't harm others. Every human being has the capacity to be more than their circumstances. To identify the essence of being human with the crudeness of our biology seems to be hopelessly conservative, perhaps even fascistic.

So though some have to work to get by many choose to work to attain their wants beyond their needs and this can become all encompassing taking time away from family matters.

So? Traditional families can be oppressive social structures. Let's not overly romanticism family life.

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.

https://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/the_indispensable_dad

It's more like pseudoscience.

 

[pleinmont]

... and maternal bonding doesn't preclude women having meaningful employment.

Agreed.

 

[stevevw]

we adopted our child at age two
our child was able to attach to both of us

I rocked her everyday & husband put her to bed @ night
we decided him doing night time would help with attachment plus he took off work when we adopted

ten years later, he still does bedtime with saying prayers & now I hear them laughing as they do "thumb wars"

when he's out of town, she misses him putting her to bed as it's their ritual & "I'm not daddy"

children need both parents and can be just as attached to dad as they are to mom

I agree and good on you and your husband for doing that. My brother and his wife have taken on their three young gran-daughters due to circumstances after spending years bringing up their own kids. It is good that there are loving people able to take on the role of bringing up kids as it is a big commitment and does take some sacrifices. But it pays off in the end when the kids grow into strong and confident adults.

 

[stevevw]

How is that a bad thing?

I see human desire itself as sacred, if it doesn't harm others. Every human being has the capacity to be more than their circumstances. To identify the essence of being human with the crudeness of our biology seems to be hopelessly conservative, perhaps even fascistic.

I'm not sure what you mean. I'm not necessarily saying wanting material possessions is bad. I am saying wanting them at the expense of human relationships especially with kids in not good. The fact is we are only capable of some much and there is only a certain amount of time during the day/week/years to do things so we have to prioritize what is important. I just think putting family first is important and I don't care about what sort of car, or house or things I have to make me look good. I should know I had to learn the hard way.

So? Traditional families can be oppressive social structures. Let's not overly romanticism family life.

Yes that is what I was saying earlier. We can cite examples of how traditional families can be dysfunctional as well. But that does negate or change the facts that they are ideally the optimal family when it comes to bring up kids for better health and well being. As the article cited in the previous post said we should be providing more support for maintain marriage and keeping families together and reducing divorce by providing more support. That is probably why there are dysfunctional traditional families because they are trying to get by in a society that undermines and works against them.

It's more like pseudoscience.

Not sure what you mean.

 

[stevevw]

You can do both: the child can bond with their parents after they come from work, you're placing unreasonable expectations given economic problems that make single income households untenable.

It is society that is placing unreal expectations on families if they think they can both work all week to pay for an ever increasing cost of living and then find time to look after children in a way that caters not only to their physical needs but emotional and psychological needs as well.

There is only so much a person can do and something has to give. The fact is for most you cannot dedicate all that time to work and then have enough energy and time left to dedicate to proper child rearing. The research speaks for itself.

My parents worked and provided for me and my brother, I don't think we have the worst relationship (it could be better, that's a whole topic I'm still working through elsewhere in the forums) and I think they've emphasized their values and I still hold them to a degree, even if I've apostasized from their political and religious angles (mom did say die hard Republican in a conversation I heard and I was raised Christian)

Good on those who do manage to spend sufficient time and energy with their kids while working full time. But on average most people cannot maintain that level of commitment and something has to give. Unfortunately having both parents work while trying to manage a family is a consequence of modern life. But I don't think it is the best way to live. I guess it comes down to what people make important in life. I think we can find ways to work less or work smarter and dedicate more time to family and community.

As we have seen with the GFC and many more people feeling insecure about their financial future people are turning to new ways of getting by. This includes communities working together through co-ops and helping each other. Some are going back to the basics with growing their own veggies and living more in harmony with nature such as the sea and tree change lifestyles. People are realizing that the rat race can be a never ending cycle of slavery to the system.

There's an element of trust involved there and it wasn't violated really, I still came home after childcare with family friends or such and didn't trust my mother or father less because of that.

Not sure if either of us can speak authoritatively in terms of what constitutes a secure attachment to one's parents and even moreso when it comes to varying parenting styles and children (with neurodivergence in particular complicating things more)

I am not saying it is not possible to be able to work full time and develop a good relationship/attachment with children. I just think it would take a lot more effort and commitment and not everyone can do that. But good on those who can.

 

[FireDragon76]

I'm not sure what you mean. I'm not necessarily saying wanting material possessions is bad. I am saying wanting them at the expense of human relationships especially with kids in not good.

Why? Do you think being a parent makes you a better human being? There's all kinds of unchallenged assumptions at play here.

The fact is we are only capable of some much and there is only a certain amount of time during the day/week/years to do things so we have to prioritize what is important. I just think putting family first is important and I don't care about what sort of car, or house or things I have to make me look good. I should know I had to learn the hard way.

Or maybe people that eschew traditional family life aren't necessarily materialists at all?

Yes that is what I was saying earlier. We can cite examples of how traditional families can be dysfunctional as well. But that does negate or change the facts that they are ideally the optimal family when it comes to bring up kids for better health and well being.

Human society is not a static thing. Humans have had different kin relationships throughout our long history, not just the 1950's nuclear family.

That is probably why there are dysfunctional traditional families because they are trying to get by in a society that undermines and works against them.

Not true. There were "dysfunctional" families even back before no-fault divorce laws. My grandfather's parents were separated when he was born, and his own first marriage ended in divorce.

 

[hedrick]

I don't think Ken-1122 was advocating violence when he mentioned disciplining a child. But some form of discipline has been shown to be important in child health and welfare. But disciplines like time out and denial of privileges are shown to not work either. Sometimes these forms of discipline are impractical. Besides there is also research that shows that disciplines like time out and denying kids things is damaging as well. That is why some still support controlled smacking as it gets the job done quickly and practically.

At least in the US, corporal punishment is legal for parents (though not necessarily in schools) in all states, unless there's been some very recent change.

It's also worth noting that many ideas about permissive parenting come from previous generations, where the alternatives were seen as authoritarian or permissiveness. Psychologists today do not recommend permissiveness, but rather what's being called authoritative parenting. This can be and probably should be done without punishment. The authoritative parenting style: An evidence-based guide

My main concern is that there are many parents who lack the education and skills needed to parent properly. They may not be able to do anything other than permissive or authoritarian parenting.

 

[muichimotsu]

It is society that is placing unreal expectations on families if they think they can both work all week to pay for an ever increasing cost of living and then find time to look after children in a way that caters not only to their physical needs but emotional and psychological needs as well.

Then the problem is more fundamental and isn't solved by some particular notion of family values that references back to Christianity or such: I'd hope you'd consider that you can value the welfare of children without believing they have souls and such

There is only so much a person can do and something has to give. The fact is for most you cannot dedicate all that time to work and then have enough energy and time left to dedicate to proper child rearing. The research speaks for itself. Good on those who do manage to spend sufficient time and energy with their kids while working full time. But on average most people cannot maintain that level of commitment and something has to give. Unfortunately having both parents work while trying to manage a family is a consequence of modern life. But I don't think it is the best way to live. I guess it comes down to what people make important in life. I think we can find ways to work less or work smarter and dedicate more time to family and community.

I don't think I entailed my parents both worked full time when I was younger, it's possible it was a part time thing and they were getting support from family and friends (including a woman whose surname I have as my middle name, lovely person who provided for my parents when they needed help)

Working smarter and working less tend to overlap, the problem is as much expectations of how much you ought to work as whether you should work as a parent

As we have seen with the GFC and many more people feeling insecure about their financial future people are turning to new ways of getting by. This includes communities working together through co-ops and helping each other. Some are going back to the basics with growing their own veggies and living more in harmony with nature such as the sea and tree change lifestyles. People are realizing that the rat race can be a never ending cycle of slavery to the system.

And that's one way of changing things, but fundamentally considering that acquisition of material wealth is a good that needs moderation would be a better start. And the same can be said for children. My parents and my aunt and uncle on my mother's side have 2 children each, because they realize the requirements of resources for childrearing are such that having more children becomes untenable to support

I am not saying it is not possible to be able to work full time and develop a good relationship/attachment with children. I just think it would take a lot more effort and commitment and not everyone can do that. But good on those who can

I'm not saying my parents necessarily have a perfect relationship with me (again, I have a thread and may make a separate one in regards to our relationship and problems that may exist within it). They put in effort, the problem is as much a system that encourages favoring work over family as the inverse where family is so important you don't care about realistically providing for them except in some emotional capacity, which doesn't let them not starve.[/QUOTE]