The traditional family

[pleinmont]

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.

Hitting a child is WRONG!

 

[hedrick]

Hitting a child is WRONG!

There was a complaint that laws made it impossible to discipline. My point was that in fact traditional practices, including reasonable spanking, are still legal in the US. That doesn't mean that these are the best approach. It appears that they are not. But approaches that avoid punishment involve a lot of work from both the parent and the child.

 

[stevevw]

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

I am not saying being a good parent makes you a better human being. I am saying being a good parent makes children better human beings. Not talent wise but with better emotional, psychological and psychical health.

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

Yes society is always changing. But at the moment we seem to be moving away from traditional families and taking on many forms of family. I guess that was inevitable seeming that we went through and are still going through a period of family breakdowns. But still the research shows that the best optimal form of family is what is known as the traditional one. That may not necessarily be biological parents but the importance of a mother and father and the role they play in children's life cannot be underestimated. The research supports this as I have already linked.

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.

Yes but they were much less often and the breakup of families has gradually increased over time. Laws and policies like no fault divorce have only aided the continual breakdown of families. It comes down to what we value as a society. marriage has become a less valuable thing over time and people go into it with unreal expectation like it is happily ever after and are not prepared for the hard and uncomfortable times. We need more support for married couples and families not policies that undermine families. As the paper I linked earlier says

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

 

[Paidiske]

Yes but they were much less often and the breakup of families has gradually increased over time.

How do you know that people who stayed married didn't have dysfunctional households, though? We know that the rates of abuse were high, alcoholism and other substance abuse was high, and so on. Divorce rates on their own tell you very little that is meaningful.

Divorce is not a good thing, but sometimes it is far better than being trapped in a destructive relationship dynamic.

 

[stevevw]

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.

As people say we need to do a course and pass a test to get a car license but anyone can be a parent. I think relationship, parenting and family support as with courses, counselling and other therapies is one of the most lacking areas of support yet it is the most crucial component to the well-being of being strong and healthy individuals and communities. We have clinics for our health with doctors but not clinics for family psychological well-being which often causes poor physical health.

I remember at school when I was young there was the cane or strap and as a kid that was a big deterrent from doing wrong. I don't think it hurt myself or most of the other kids and in some ways instilled respect and discipline in us. Of course this can lead to people over using corporal punishment and becoming uncontrolled but when administered properly I think it worked OK. I just think we have gone too far the other way and we are too scared to discipline kids today. That has caused many to get out of control and probably created an even worse problem that over use of corporal punishment.

 

[AvisG]

So just because the Soviets made token gestures towards female equality, the notion must be evil? Can you say "fallacy"?

"Token" gestures? Uh, not exactly. My point concerned the historical reality that the destruction of the nuclear family was a top priority of the Soviet regime for reasons analogous to those of the left in the U.S. Indeed, for pretty much exactly the same reasons. Your comment about "fallacy" is a complete non sequitur. Can you say "reading comprehension"?

 

[stevevw]

How do you know that people who stayed married didn't have dysfunctional households, though? We know that the rates of abuse were high, alcoholism and other substance abuse was high, and so on. Divorce rates on their own tell you very little that is meaningful.

Divorce is not a good thing, but sometimes it is far better than being trapped in a destructive relationship dynamic.

They probably did have dysfunctional families. I agree it is better today in talking about our problems and exposing the abuse. But abuse as in family and domestic violence is still high today. I am not sure about the history of marriage and divorce and the contributing factors. I agree it is not a simple straight forward problem and has complex contributing factors. It may be somewhere in the middle where there is always some dysfunction and it is whether there is support to help families sort it out. But all I know is optimally the traditional form of the family is best for all involved. Staying married and children having a mum and dad is best regardless of the context.

 

[FireDragon76]

I am not saying being a good parent makes you a better human being. I am saying being a good parent makes children better human beings. Not talent wise but with better emotional, psychological and psychical health.
Yes society is always changing. But at the moment we seem to be moving away from traditional families and taking on many forms of family.

You have yet to convincing demonstrate that's a real problem, and not one that your religious ideology just labels as problematic.

In many hunter-gatherer and band-level societies, the responsibility for raising children lies with the entire tribe. All evidence seems to suggest they were the predominant form of human society for hundreds of thousands of years.

I guess that was inevitable seeming that we went through and are still going through a period of family breakdowns. But still the research shows that the best optimal form of family is what is known as the traditional one.

That's rightwing pseudoscience, not real research. Real research suggests children can be raised in a variety of family structures. Some non-traditional family structures can actually produce children that have unique competencies.

 

[pleinmont]

I have no doubt those who think so called 'traditional families' are best would freak out at the idea of gays and lesbians bringing up children. I have no problem with them doing so as long as the kids are loved and cared for.

 

[hedrick]

But still the research shows that the best optimal form of family is what is known as the traditional one.

Sort of. The main work that's been done is on one parent vs two parent households, and on same gender partners vs opposite gender. This is a pretty narrow range. I'm not aware, for example, of comparisons with extended families or tribes involvement. The studies have been mostly on variations of the "nuclear" family.

Results show that two parents are on average better than one. But most of those studies have problems. They compare one-parent families with average two-parent families. But with divorce the real option is often one parent vs two parents in a high-conflict family. Recently a few studies of that have been done, and they show similar problems. There are also different causes of one-parent families, and I suspect that they are likely to produce different results. For example, there are one-parent families resulting from divorce, and one-parent families resulting from unwed mothers, who are often not in an economic position to do a good job of parenting. (The traditional alternative to that was the "shotgun wedding." A couple produced that way might have both economic and relational problems, though surely those situations did sometimes work OK. I think you'd need a time machine to do that comparison. But here's an attempt: Is shotgun marriage dead?, though it looks like they only checked divorce rates, not the welfare of children. No, they didn't use a time machine.)

Work on same vs opposite gender families show no significant difference as long as other factors are the same.

I general I agree that two-parent families tend to be better. But policies or moral requirements to force that don't necessarily improve things, because one-parent families typically result from unfortunate situations where you want to look for the best possible result but not necessarily an ideal one.

 

[Paidiske]

But all I know is optimally the traditional form of the family is best for all involved. Staying married and children having a mum and dad is best regardless of the context.

No. Staying married isn't best if it means taking a beating every time he feels like it. Staying married isn't best if it means emotional abuse as a way of life. Staying married and the children being with both biological parents isn't best if that means profound neglect of the children.

Sometimes variations from the ideal are the best option in that particular circumstance, and I really get very frustrated by people denigrating those who do the best they can with what life's given them.

 

[FireDragon76]

No. Staying married isn't best if it means taking a beating every time he feels like it. Staying married isn't best if it means emotional abuse as a way of life. Staying married and the children being with both biological parents isn't best if that means profound neglect of the children.

Sometimes variations from the ideal are the best option in that particular circumstance, and I really get very frustrated by people denigrating those who do the best they can with what life's given them.

When unrealistic ideals are used to crush and break peoples spirits, that's not right. It's one thing I object to in Christianity.

Most people simply do the best they can with what they have. That's not something they should feel guilty about.

 

[Ken-1122]

In many hunter-gatherer and band-level societies, the responsibility for raising children lies with the entire tribe. All evidence seems to suggest they were the predominant form of human society for hundreds of thousands of years.

I remember years ago Hilary Clinton wrote a book “it takes a village” basically about how the entire tribe used to be involved in your child’s upbringing. Nobody wants that today! My dad was raised in such a village/neighborhood and what that meant was if you were acting up, the neighbor down the street had permission to grab a belt and beat you with it then take you home where your mom would beat you. If you acted up in school, the teacher would paddle you in class then send you home with a note where your parents would beat you. When the entire village is involved in raising your kid, the entire village was allowed to discipline your child as they deem necessary. Parents of today will not allow another adult to physically discipline their child, as a matter of fact parents aren’t even allowed to physically discipline their child in most places, the only ones allowed to physically discipline your child is the police.

 

[mama2one]

.

 

[FireDragon76]

I remember years ago Hilary Clinton wrote a book “it takes a village” basically about how the entire tribe used to be involved in your child’s upbringing. Nobody wants that today! My dad was raised in such a village/neighborhood and what that meant was if you were acting up, the neighbor down the street had permission to grab a belt and beat you with it then take you home where your mom would beat you. If you acted up in school, the teacher would paddle you in class then send you home with a note where your parents would beat you. When the entire village is involved in raising your kid, the entire village was allowed to discipline your child as they deem necessary. Parents of today will not allow another adult to physically discipline their child, as a matter of fact parents aren’t even allowed to physically discipline their child in most places, the only ones allowed to physically discipline your child is the police.

Harsh physical discipline is not necessarily universal to all cultures. It's really a product of western culture.

When the Lakota people encountered the white man on his westward journey, they thought the white people were barbarians because whites beat their children.

 

[miggles]

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.

i think the traditional family unit is best. but if one spouse is abusive to the other and the children it nulls and voids any good that can come from it. jmo.

 

[stevevw]

You have yet to convincing demonstrate that's a real problem, and not one that your religious ideology just labels as problematic.

I though I had already done that when I posted the links showing how children need to bond with a caregiver (usually the mother). The optimal family structure is when a couple stay together and children have the influence of both a mother and father role models in their life. There are psychological reasons for the specific roles fathers and mothers play in children's lives. But I am not saying that other family structures are not good and capable bringing up children.

In many hunter-gatherer and band-level societies, the responsibility for raising children lies with the entire tribe. All evidence seems to suggest they were the predominant form of human society for hundreds of thousands of years.

Yes this is the collective approach such as Indigenous people take where they form big families that include involvement of grandparents, uncles and aunties and this extended into tribes and a kinship network. But men would usually do the physical such as go hunt while the women gathered and looked after the children. Men also were involved with children but more in an instructive way. There was no power difference and men and women were equals in their own right and ways.

Paleolithic societies
These settlements allowed for division of labor, and labor was often divided along gender lines, with women doing much of the gathering, cooking, and child-rearing and men doing much of the hunting, though this was certainly not the case across all Paleolithic societies.
However, it is important to note that gender dynamics in Paleolithic times were likely drastically different from our own, and as such, the division of labor between men and women does not necessarily indicate differences in equality or power. There are competing theories about whether hunting or gathering contributed more to group nutrition, but both seemed to have played an important role.
Paleolithic societies

That's rightwing pseudoscience, not real research. Real research suggests children can be raised in a variety of family structures. Some non-traditional family structures can actually produce children that have unique competencies.

That's true and I am not saying that different family makeups cannot raise and love children and do a good job. I am talking about what the science has found about what is the optimal way to bring up children. That is not to say that traditional family makeups can harm children. So there are other factors involved like parenting ability for example and the parents own emotional and psychological stability.

But we cannot disregard the importance and unique role of what a father and a mother plays in a child's life. Otherwise what is the use and need for being a father or mother. This is the concern about what is happening today where some are wanting to dismantle the roles of men and women and completely destroy them. Mention the word traditional family or a mother or father role and all hell breaks loose like it is against the law to mention these things. It is not right wing or pseudoscience to want to support traditional families but based on scientific fact. It seems some want to disregard and ignore the science in favor of their ideologies.

The research on fathering is indisputable: Fathers have a crucial role to play in the cognitive, social, and emotional development of their children.
Expert findings about involved fathers
Research about a mother’s role in child development abounds, largely because attachment theory gives a basis from which to conduct the research.

researchers are looking at the unique and important ways fathers influence their children. As a result of that research, it is now established that fathers play an essential role in the upbringing of their children.
The Importance of Dads

 

[stevevw]

i think the traditional family unit is best. but if one spouse is abusive to the other and the children it nulls and voids any good that can come from it. jmo.

I agree and it is like anything. Something can be naturally good as nature intended and that is not about learnt talent or a persons mental and emotional stability as to why is is naturally best. But people in these situations can be abusive due to being emotionally and psychologically unstable or unprepared and destroy everything. So the family structure is only part of the equation as to what is best for a family and children's upbringing.

 

[stevevw]

No. Staying married isn't best if it means taking a beating every time he feels like it. Staying married isn't best if it means emotional abuse as a way of life. Staying married and the children being with both biological parents isn't best if that means profound neglect of the children.

Sometimes variations from the ideal are the best option in that particular circumstance, and I really get very frustrated by people denigrating those who do the best they can with what life's given them.

I agree no one should stay in an abusive family situation and any situation is better. But there are a lot of kids out there from broken families and a lot of people that have gone from their original family situation into other situations and it is very hard for them. Stats show that second time round family situations have a high failure rate. It is often these families that have to pick up the pieces of previous broken relationships which can make it harder to cope.

If you look at single parent families for example. It is the parent (usually the mother) who has to pickup the pieces and try to give their children a good life. But the government can work against this through policies that make it harder for single parents such as tougher welfare obligations, reducing their welfare and pushing them into work when they need to be with their child/children. We need more family support across the board.

 

[stevevw]

Sort of. The main work that's been done is on one parent vs two parent households, and on same gender partners vs opposite gender. This is a pretty narrow range. I'm not aware, for example, of comparisons with extended families or tribes involvement. The studies have been mostly on variations of the "nuclear" family.

Results show that two parents are on average better than one. But most of those studies have problems. They compare one-parent families with average two-parent families. But with divorce the real option is often one parent vs two parents in a high-conflict family. Recently a few studies of that have been done, and they show similar problems. There are also different causes of one-parent families, and I suspect that they are likely to produce different results. For example, there are one-parent families resulting from divorce, and one-parent families resulting from unwed mothers, who are often not in an economic position to do a good job of parenting. (The traditional alternative to that was the "shotgun wedding." A couple produced that way might have both economic and relational problems, though surely those situations did sometimes work OK. I think you'd need a time machine to do that comparison. But here's an attempt: Is shotgun marriage dead?, though it looks like they only checked divorce rates, not the welfare of children. No, they didn't use a time machine.)

I agree that assessing what is the best family makeup is hard and there are so many contributing factors with single and couple family comparisons. But I tend to take a common sense approach to this where I don't think we need to go into all the contextual and complicating factors that much to know that two parents are better than one. Logic tells us with everything being equal two minds and bodies on any job is better then one.

Most problems stem from financial status nowadays and having a single parent will find it hard to work and look after her kid then a couple. The fact is there will be certain consequences of being a single parent that may rub off on the kids. Not all single parents will handle the situation the same and some will have more resilience than others but on average it will be harder.

The question has to be asked does a mother or father have an important and unique role to play in the family and a child's upbringing. Because the other factor I see that may contribute to problems for kids is the lack of one of the parental roles in their life. It is often mentioned that a young boy needs a father figure in their life. If not then what is the use of these roles. But the science says that a mother and father are important so logic tells us that a child who is missing one of these parents will have some effect on their life.

Work on same vs opposite gender families show no significant difference as long as other factors are the same.

We can take the same logical approach to comparisons of same sex couples and opposite sex couples as well. As above the first thing that stands out for me is to say is there a role for a father and a mother in families and bringing up kids and if this role is missing does it have a negative effect on children. If it makes no difference in not having a mother and father present then what is the use of the role of a father or a mother anymore.

Secondly if independent research shows that a father or mother play an important and unique role in child rearing then we don't need comparison studies between same sex and opposite sex families. If the research says that mothers and fathers play a unique and important role then that cannot really be substituted. I agree that the problem with comparison studies is that there are many variables and reliability factors involved. So for me taking it back to basics and logic seems to work best and not complicate things.

I general I agree that two-parent families tend to be better. But policies or moral requirements to force that don't necessarily improve things, because one-parent families typically result from unfortunate situations where you want to look for the best possible result but not necessarily an ideal one.

Yes I agree and in community development a social justice approach is best where those who are most disadvantaged need the most support because the focus is not on the personal reasons why people have ended up in that situation but that the system is basically unjust and oppressive and dis-empowers people. So they need representation to help them get fair and equal access to opportunities in life.