A disappearing breed: the nuclear family

Author: fauxlaw ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 30
  • Lemming
    Lemming avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 523
    3
    2
    3
    Lemming avatar
    Lemming
    --> @fauxlaw
    I'm unsure of 'definition of nuclear family?
  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 60
    Forum posts: 2,889
    4
    6
    10
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    --> @Lemming
    Defined in post #1
    Every one of us, I don't care wgo, began with at least a mother and father. Whether they considered themselves that is, of course, variable, but that was always the intent from the beginning of Earth's human family, bar none.
    Why? You make something, you have responsibility for it, whether it's a cutting tool, or a baby. It is what "have dominion" means, first, last, always.
  • Lemming
    Lemming avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 523
    3
    2
    3
    Lemming avatar
    Lemming
    --> @fauxlaw
    Well, I'd agree that a biological mother and a biological father, raising their biological children is an effective methodology, 'generally in a society.
    'May be that having 'standard 'culture in raising of kids is 'generally more effective in society.

    Making interchangeable parts is useful for machinery.
    By that I mean if people use same standard, then same methods, stress, intervention, teaching can be applied to said standard.

    May be other family compositions in raising kids also effective, but I'm more familiar with biological mother, father raising kid.
  • oromagi
    oromagi avatar
    Debates: 99
    Forum posts: 4,639
    7
    9
    11
    oromagi avatar
    oromagi
    --> @fauxlaw

    • If you would claim that the Sermon on the Mount holds no significant place  at the heart of human benevolence, I'd ask you to name some moral teaching that is more significant  or influential in human history
    As a society, we give little credence to the SoM. Instead, we have allegiance to being woke. Big deal.
    Well I've already showed that your first sentence is bullshit.  The Sermon is given more credence than any other ethical notion ever.  I'm not a big fan of the word WOKE since it seems to be one these terms for which everybody customizes their own definition, generally for the purpose of creating  the illusion of disagreement.  WOKE is mostly academic bumptiousness without a lot of new thinking but I can't see any conflict between the central notion of WOKE- [alertness to injustice] and the Sermon except for the rather ubiquitous failures of judging others before judging ourselves.  Still, wokeness and the Sermon on the Mount are generally in harmony.

    • In what way is the NUCLEAR FAMILY related to the Sermon on the Mount? 
    You will note a hierarchy of proper attitudes, first to one’s self, and gradually transcending, from Matt 5 through 7,  to society at large, from individual, to family, to society. No, ‘family,’ as a word, is not given, but is implied in the importance of other people.
    Equivocation.  We've established that the word family meant something far more inclusive to Jesus than the 20th century term NUCLEAR FAMILY.  You can't pretend that  Jesus endorsed the exclusivity of NUCLEAR FAMILY when everything in his life and word made family inclusive- by faith alone we are all children of God, by making peace alone we are all children of God.

    • Are you suggesting that the NUCLEAR FAMILY  somehow reflects Jesus' teachings or Christian tradition?
    The nuclear family has a better chance of supporting one another in an attempt to live by it than by a lone individual, and change lndividul by individual, then family by family...
    But that better chance is not only also true of non-nuclear families it is far more true of non-nuclear families.  You're trying to justify an exclusion based on an authority (tSotM) that clearly preferred inclusion.

  • oromagi
    oromagi avatar
    Debates: 99
    Forum posts: 4,639
    7
    9
    11
    oromagi avatar
    oromagi
    --> @Lemming
    --> @fauxlaw
    I'm unsure of 'definition of nuclear family?
    I don't blame you.

    The term started in academia in 1920s to facilitate discussion of the core biological unit and how that unit interacts with family, clan, tribe by culture.  Grandparents, uncles, aunts,  second and third wives and thier offspring, bastards, step-children, and adoptees were specifically excluded.

    In the 1950's the term was adopted by American advertising and marketers as a way of promoting the new household of the Atomic Age- every nuclear family needed a new house, car, dishwasher, etc.  Step-children and adoptees were mostly ok but each generation needed a separate household with a separate demand for material goods.

    By the 1990's, the term's main use was a dog whistle for American social conservatives trying to portray the 1950's model as traditional- the man works, the woman makes the babies and cooks and clean.   Never mind that human survival rates and labor requirements before the 20th century could never support nuclear families as a norm, never mind that most of the rest of world still thought of family as belonging to place and tribe, never mind the Feminism that sought to escape the subjugation of women to most of the work, the nuclear family would be promoted as traditional even though it was a radical new thing already in decline. 

    As far as I can tell, fauxlaw intends the latter usage.