Nuclear family

[mdwh]

Gender roles are only a bad thing to leftist loons.

Lefties, you've been told! Can't argue with this high level of debate.

 

[innonimatu]

Ideal family is two parents that have enough time to look after their children and don't have to hire a sitter most of the time, and let kids express their opinions. Single parent family is (usually) detrimental for children development. 'Nuff said.

The real difference is between those families where the parents have time for their kids, and those where they get dumped first thing in the morning on school or some nursery, then after school get pushed into some sort of "free-time activities" to keep them busy away from home, and only return to dine and sleep...

I don’t know how common this is in other countries. It has become common on my own (Portugal) over the past 6 years or so, and frankly I’m scared of how the generation going through this will turn up. Perhaps they will adapt fine, but there are couples who sometimes even forget they have sons, as used as they are to dump them somewhere for convenience (or necessity, if both parents work all day!).

 

[Communisto]

No, the nature is oppresssing them

Seriously, gender roles are as old as the humanity itself. Until recently, nobody thought there is something wrong with the fact that women should be the mothers and men should be the fathers. Then, a group of sexually frustrated people suggested that we've been wrong for the last 2 million years and in fact the gender roles are men's tool of oppression.

That's bulls***t if you ask me.

I don't think you quite understand what a gender role is. I agree that some gender rolling is a good thing but supporting it leads to a miserable housewife cooking meatloaf all day hopped up on government granted drugs to keep her from being too "uppity" like in the 1950s. Don't take me for a feminist though because I am sick to death of feminism/feminist nazis but gender roles are, on a whole, a bad thing.

EDIT: racism, slavery, genocide and homophobia (among other horrible things) have been part of humanity for millions of years, should we continue propagating those things too?

 

[boarder]

I would say yes although I have no doubt a single parent can do just a good a job of raising there kids.

 

[LucyDuke]

I'm a bit of a fan of the "Whatever has worked for the past million years" camp. Although I would think that the guy and girl can switch mother/father figures as long as one is getting the bread and the other is caring for the young.

Keep in mind that we haven't had anonymous suburbia for the past million years. Children have been raised by single parents for the past million years, too, but they had a community to grow up in. A tribe, as an earlier poster put it. A village, as a common saying suggests. A nuclear family is not enough.

Don't take me for a feminist though because I am sick to death of feminism/feminist nazis but gender roles are, on a whole, a bad thing.

Something tells me that, based on the rest of your post, if you understood proper feminism (rather than judging radicals), you would support it.

 

[azzaman333]

Well that's an entirely separate issue. You could just as equally have the man staying at home and bringing up the kids, but that would be contrary to western society's gender roles.

Sure you could, but women are better suited to the role of child-raiser from my experiences.

 

[aneeshm]

The nuclear family is the strongest institution for creating and teaching values, and has a capacity for social change that the state could only dream about. It ought to be protected.

Why do you not understand that it is precisely because it has this power so much greater than the state that the statists, the leftists, and the leftist state hate it so much?

Maybe you don't realise it now, maybe you won't until it's too late, but the concept of a family, joint, nuclear, or otherwise, is falling apart in the West. This destruction is being actively or passively encouraged by the ideals of, and the instances of, the welfare state. I can say this because I'm an outsider everywhere, more objective than most would be.

Unless there is a counter-reaction (as there is, by the way, just not strong enough right now), the family and all related institutions will fail and fall apart, and the state will be the only thing left to the individual. This is the dream of the statists and leftists everywhere. It is also the worst nightmare of those who care for human rights.

 

[amaterasu]

I dont understand the parents have more time for the kids. Unless one doesn't work, then the amount of time available is quite equal. And if one parent doesn't work, they become a dependant, putting the relationship in worse stead and sending out that message to the child.

And there shouldn't really be any specific roles applied to gender, then you are manipulating the child to think things abotu life they havent decided upon themselves. It also leaves them with that baggage for ages.

@ansheem, the power to create views from the nuclear family is more brainwashing, if they are exposed to the idea early, constantly, and told its right, they will obviously believe it.

Also the nuclear family isnt flexible enough, hence its breakdown. My point on less people taking it up, it cant be a great structure if none can keep it up can it?

But yes parenting itsaelf has a greater impact.

 

[Leonel]

Keep in mind that we haven't had anonymous suburbia for the past million years. Children have been raised by single parents for the past million years, too, but they had a community to grow up in. A tribe, as an earlier poster put it. A village, as a common saying suggests. A nuclear family is not enough.

Oh yes, you're right! I didn't take that into account. But then again, I didn't specifically say "man, woman, 2.5 children" but "what worked"

 

[LucyDuke]

Oh yes, you're right! I didn't take that into account. But then again, I didn't specifically say "man, woman, 2.5 children" but "what worked"

Yes, I wasn't disagreeing with you. It's just that people forget that any kind of child-raising situation is insufficient outside of the context of a community. That's the one thing that has changed the most in recent years, and it's misleading to try to blame problems on what hasn't changed - that kids have been raised by single parents, by grandparents, by siblings, and so on, throughout history. The actual changes are overlooked. I'm not sure why I can't shut up about this.

 

[Paradigne]

I find it funny that gender roles are unacceptable to some people yet homosexuality is natural...

 

[Communisto]

Something tells me that, based on the rest of your post, if you understood proper feminism (rather than judging radicals), you would support it.

I fully support core feminism as any other sane person would, however I think there is no need for a "modern feminist movement" as they have little left to overcome except in certain cases. It seems to be a crutch that some women rely on when they fail to accomplish something.

I find it funny that gender roles are unacceptable to some people yet homosexuality is natural...

yeah, nature is so un-natural.

 

[mdwh]

Sure you could, but women are better suited to the role of child-raiser from my experiences.

On average. Sure, people should do what they like and are best at; nNothing to do with gender roles though.

 

[mdwh]

I find it funny that gender roles are unacceptable to some people yet homosexuality is natural...

I'll bite: why?

Forced gender roles (which is what people have a problem with - nothing wrong with choosing to go along with a gender role) is just the same sort of thing as saying that what gender you are attracted to should be based on what you have between the legs, i.e., forced heterosexuality. So it doesn't seem unsurprising that people who dislike forced gender roles would also support that people who are homosexual should be able to live that way.

Quite why people are so obsessed with other people's bollocks, or lack of, when it comes to who they should fancy and how they should behave in every aspect of life, is beyond me.