Is the nuclear family the only stable enviroment for children to grow up in?

http://rightwingbigot.files.wordpres...ly-300x297.jpg

As I’m sure many of you have noticed, the extent of family diversity has increased rapidly over the years, if you went back 30/40 years, majority of the population's families would be a 'nuclear' family, whereas today, you have families with dual earning parents, extended families, reconstituted families and even families with same sex parents.

If you aren't aware, a nuclear family consists typically of a married couple with children, where the man would go out to work and the woman will stay at home to cook, clean and look after the house/children.

Some people would argue that this typical formation of the family represses women and restricts their freedom. Others would argue that children from this type of family typically end up with better, higher paying jobs and are less likely to turn to crime.
So anyway, here’s the question. Do you think the traditional family is the most suitable environment for children to be raised in, or do you think that the family type doesn’t matter as long as they have all the care and support they need?

I don't really have an opinion on this because I'm completely in the middle. You can see pros and cons for each side. I studied this stuff for AS Sociology last year and enjoyed it SO much; after all, half of the course is on Family and Households! Whilst I won't be contributing to the debate right now, I look forward to seeing what people say about the topic! :)

ncan not be assed with this debate cause dan won't take "no" as an answer to this question, reckons anyone not in a nuclear family is from a 'broken home' but you know broken home refers to any type of family. just wanted to point out that a nuclear family is NOT traditional, only been in the past 30/40 years like you said. look at italy/asia for example, their 'traditional' family is the extended family of grandparents, aunts etc - think greece is the same. traditionally and NATURALLY worldwide, two parent families were unheard of. the guys would have many kids to many woman and the woman would look after the child(ren). however, times have changed, women dont need to marry to depend on men and can work themselves and divorce is also easier so we see more single-parent families. while the nuclear family has its advantages its not necessarily the best, an unloving mother and/or father is far more damaging than a loving single parent. even then it doesnt have to be a mother, just someone that cares for you, biologically or not - hence why i'm also for adoptio. it's how you're brought up, not necessarily by whom. my opinion anyway n i feel fairly strongly about it but dont feel like wasting my time here.

As a psychologist I don't believe that the nuclear family is beneficial for children. Research has shown that at birth a child only has the need to bond with it's mother (this research also changed systems such as ensuring whenever possible a mother is with her newborn baby in hospital at all times). It is thought that this bond is the most important aspect of that child's individual development. I believe this is true. Some psychodynamic theorists such as Erikson proposed that during these stages the child will make unconscious choices, Erikson's first stage being the choice of Trust V Mistrust. It isn't necessarily a "choice" but more of a passing through a stage but it's also referred to as a choice as things that can happen can affect it, for instance if a mother neglects a baby they will choose mistrust and generally have a mistrust of people of a caring position. If it's all smooth, they learn to trust. If you think about this it makes sense. Erikson is an interesting psychologist to look into, especially if you're someone who saw what Freud was trying to get at with his stages of development (with the sleeping with your mother part removed).

I'm not going to back any more of this up with theory as it's late and I have a 10am start, but I believe that this initial bond can be with anybody. Although there is evidence to show prenatal learning, such as a child recognising it's own mothers voice from being just a few hours old I don't think this is relevant to the bond a baby forms with it's carer at birth - note I said carer where in the first paragraph I said mother, most theory refers to mother although a lot of this theory is very old and outdated and the new theorists and journals are much harder to remember as half of them are crap. Basically, I think looking at it from a 21st century perspective that as long as a baby makes that initial bond with a caring figure, mother, father, adoptive mother, adoptive father, adoptive homosexual father, whoever then that child has hit the first criteria of a successful and happy development, it's important for this figure to maintain it's care throughout the childhood, other figures may appear and bonds with these figures can appear but the bond will always be strongest with the carer who formed the initial bond with the child, there's evidence of mothers who suffered from post-natal depression who rejected their children not being as close to their children as the father later on in early childhood, although this is difficult to measure as in the 21st century a favourite parent tends to be the person who treats the child the most (whether this be in a material way or other).

So no, a nuclear family is not the only way to ensure a child has a stable mental and social development, as long as the child can form an initial bond at birth with a caring figure and this caring figure is there throughout childhood with or without other figures then the child can develop in a stable manner. There's even evidence to suggest that at certain ages, the figure who formed the initial bond can actually be replaced, although this is more successful with certain ages and I can't remember which or why. This certainly doesn't fit in with the nuclear family.

Naturally, divorce hurts a child and causes issues for the childs development but this isn't in support of the nuclear family either, as divorce could have a similar impact to a child as say, a loved grandparent dying or a friend. These things aren't related to the nuclear family but can impact the development in the exact same way? Surely this is more trauma associated than what kind of family it is?

That is my viewpoint as a psychologist, a scientific viewpoint really. Scientifically if a child is born into a family (whether that's naturally, or handed over through adoption) that child's mental and social development will be the exact same quality irrelevant of family structure providing the basic needs of an initial bond and latter care and love are met. However that's not to say that there aren't benefits to the nuclear family, however I feel that the only benefits are actually quite sad.

I think the only benefit to being brought up in a nuclear family is avoiding prejudice. Whilst the family will provide all it can for the child and scientifically tick all the boxes to help them develop, a non-nuclear family can be frowned upon by society. Single parents, homosexual parents, a working mother and stay at home dad etc can all be frowned upon. Fortunately, with the way our society is changing this should gradually get less and less, single parents and stay at home dads are viewed with less negativity nowadays than they would have 15-30 years ago but children with homosexual parents get bullied all the time at school still, as do those with single parents or stay at home fathers but this is less common nowadays. Obviously, such occurrences can impact development and it is a direct result of the family status, it may break the trust the child had with the initial-bond figure.

The fact that the only advantage of a nuclear family I can think of is that a child won't be victimised for having a "different" family to normal is something I personally find quite despicable. I am just glad that we are slowly moving away from these prejudices however I feel it will be a long time until they are gone entirely, when they are - the nuclear family will be useless and a thing of the past.

To answer the question bluntly, no - a nuclear family is not the only way to bring up a child in a stable environment and I think in 50 or so years the term "nuclear family" won't really be used, as family will become a collective term and it will be universally accepted (as it already is in some societies, as buttons pointed out - I answered this from a Western perspective) that families differ family to family.

mom, step dad, 9 kids works for me :)

Well, talking about 'nuclear family', I seriously do not know where to start. There are a lot of pros and cons, like Mathew said.

To me, they both balance out each other.

The child will be able to grow up in a good environment as long as their parents (and relatives) care about them and give them all the support. Somehow, it kind of depends on what environment they live in. When you live in a poor countries like India and Africa, you can see that the nuclear family thingy doesn't work like what you said. Children at poor countries are brought up in a different kind of culture which money, weapons and sons matter the most. That will change the children's mindset a lot. You cannot blame them. You can only blame the culture. But, you still cannot change anything. It takes a lot of effort to change their mindset and the environment because the culture is already there for decades.

Plus, wise and loving parents does not mean that their children will have good income jobs in the future.
What if they are NEGATIVELY influenced by their close friends? I'm pretty sure their parents cannot choose who they befriend and so on. It will only limit their social freedom, make them go unsatisfied and finally, they'll become 'no good' children of the future.

What about their parents are just too busy to take care of their children?
Fyi, there's a kindergarten beside my school and so, I always observe what's going on there. Well, not always but sometimes. Haha.. naughty me. Ok. Back to the point. Usually, I see parents sending their children ranging from 2 years old to 5 years old to the kindergarten. You might say that a kindergarten is a place for children to make new friends and learn ABCDs..

But, no. The reality tells me that parents send them there due to lack of time to take care of them. So, that's mainly why you can see babies or 1-2 years old children at kindergartens. Other than that, there are also parents who would send them to their grandparents or caretaker. Those are the general uncertainties about the environment children grow up in.

Well, after talking so and so, I think you get what I mean. They will not have the time to get to know their parents and they will turn to their friends. Then, friends will be closer to them than parents and there'll be fights/arguments in that family.

But, what about their parents still find time to interact with their children although they are really busy? That makes a whole world of difference. With nice interactions and understanding, the children will grow up better compared to parents who don't even give a **** about them.

Lastly, my answer is no. Nuclear family is NOT the ONLY stable environment for children to grow up in.

I would say that the nuclear family unit is actually less stable nowadays. It's only possible if one of the two parents (either mother or father) earns enough in their one job to sustain the family, which is impossible for the majority of families. Both parents need to work (my mum had 3 jobs at one point!). What is most important is love. Without sounding all Dumbledore, if a child knows that they are loved then they are likely to be more secure with various life challenges because they'll know they have a safety net to fall back on, regardless of whether it's 1 or 2 parents.

nahhhh

Edited by Infectious (Forum Super Moderator): Please do not make pointless posts!

...and yet despite all this 'research' by the sociologists (who also think that crime isn't to be blamed on the criminal, rather his background or society at large) that is so often quoted we have broken homes on estates which we never had on this scale before, children who have never known their fathers and know no discipline, mothers who rely on handouts from the state which then affects the children as they then see no need to commit themselves when they are older.

We rightly look down on divorce (or at least some of us still do) because it breaks a family up, and anybody who has attended school will notice, and i'm sorry for the sterotype here but its blindingly unavoidable, that the pattern is that children who have divorced parents/do not know one parent are more likely to be disruptive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hecktix

(as it already is in some societies, as buttons pointed out - I answered this from a Western perspective) that families differ family to family.

---

Actually I think you will both find that this is false. Asian families, especially Japanese families and religious families (Italy, Spain) are very conservative in their outlook in regards to the family and tend to uphold family values much more than we do today in the western world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buttons

dan won't take "no" as an answer to this question

---

Correct, someone has yet to convince me that since the traditional family fell to the cultural revolutionaries during the 1960s, that family life is better or that parents are better than before. The opposite is the truth, following its [the traditional familys'] abolition.

Although if you are a male child in a family with a single parent, you become more protective in a sense, I think you are more liable to doing crimes.

I don't agree that women should stay home and do the cleaning, cooking and caring (we're not the Nazis, right?) but I think that without 2 parents, there is a high percentage unfortunately of you ending up in the wrong/not academically achieving what you are capable of.

First of all I think it is essential to say that this can not be answered without consideration to cultures. The nuclear family may or may not be the most productive for us (using us to represent UK because that's where the majority of the board are from) but there is no way you can argue that the 'nuclear family' or 'cereal box family' as it is sometimes called (think of cereal adverts :P) is the most stable environment for children in all cultures. Like someone mentioned, a lot of families in Asia don't have and would be horrified at the thought of a nuclear family. Their childhood is also very stable, so straight away I can establish there is no link between a stable childhood and the nuclear family.

However moving back to Britain, it is a very common misconception that the nuclear family was the most common type of family before a certain time, I've seen 1960s branded around in this thread. That wasn't the case. If we look at just the 20th century to keep it relevant, the most common type of family throughout the 20th century was the extended family. You can look at the census if you doubt me and it will give you the evidence (everyone else is on about opinions) that is needed to corroborate with my argument.

This argument arises now because it is believed that children are wild, have no respect, hate education and are hellbent on causing destruction to everything they touch. Well, look through any old news archive website and you can see this has always been the case. Even when the nuclear family was a rarity, which it was and in my opinion will be again soon. It is not a new phenomena - children are exactly that, children. Not many are 'stable' whilst growing up because well, they're growing up and grappling with their surroundings.

I don't think the nuclear family is the only stable environment, you could argue just as easily for the opposite. When you're living with two parents who have been together for 20+ years it is only natural for them to become fed up and or annoyed at one another. The friction between the two can cause a detrimental effect on the child's upbringing and ensure that their environment is a volatile as opposed to stable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

...and yet despite all this 'research' by the sociologists (who also think that crime isn't to be blamed on the criminal, rather his background or society at large) that is so often quoted we have broken homes on estates which we never had on this scale before, children who have never known their fathers and know no discipline, mothers who rely on handouts from the state which then affects the children as they then see no need to commit themselves when they are older.

---

Common misconception. Like I said look on any archive site which discusses news. These aren't new phenomena - they're decades old. It is just now, in the society we live in, it is easier for this news to reach us and spread so we're under the illusion that children don't have father figures and because of this are uncontrollable. Think about the world-war period when millions of fathers were absent. Were all the children running about causing havoc then, no. Of course you can argue you can't compare that era to any other but you're arguing and you're quite firm about it that you need a father figure in your life. Is not the case.

Quote:

---

We rightly look down on divorce (or at least some of us still do) because it breaks a family up, and anybody who has attended school will notice, and i'm sorry for the sterotype here but its blindingly unavoidable, that the pattern is that children who have divorced parents/do not know one parent are more likely to be disruptive.

---

Awful stereotype. I'm not sure on statistics but so many parents get divorced now, I wouldn't be surprised to see the figure at 30/40% if not slightly higher. Children will become unstable if their environment isn't stable, granted. However, there are more factors that divorce that contribute to this. If their parents argue and say perhaps one is subject to domestic abuse, those are more detrimental features on an upbringing. To say you disagree with divorce is ignorant too. When the man she thought she knew turns around one day and hits her, should she accept this just so a couple of people condone her. No. You're living in a time before 2011.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

Actually I think you will both find that this is false. Asian families, especially Japanese families and religious families (Italy, Spain) are very conservative in their outlook in regards to the family and tend to uphold family values much more than we do today in the western world.

---

Which I think proves her point perfectly. They don't have the classical nuclear family and there is a strong case, like you say, that these cultures are a lot more conservative and their children perhaps have more stable environments. You contradict yourself here by suggesting that the extended family seen in Italy and Asia uphold values as opposed to the nuclear family which you still see in Britain/America and then you continue to say that the nuclear family is the family that creates the most stable environment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

Correct, someone has yet to convince me that since the traditional family fell to the cultural revolutionaries during the 1960s, that family life is better or that parents are better than before. The opposite is the truth, following its the traditional familys' abolition.

---

It fell much before then. Think of how many lives were lost in the war. Think of when the extended family ceased to be so popular (1920/1930s) the nuclear family is still dominant but it isn't as strong as people believe/want to believe.

I personally believe "The Nuclear Family" is the only way of advancing.

I am basing this solely on my sisters job at a nursery. She finds, that many of the parents now both work full time, and therefore pretty much abandon their children until they HAVE to pick them up.

For example, my sister had a child who was sick a few weeks back. She phoned the mother, who was in full time employment (as was the father) to explain that the child needed to be picked up. The response? "Touch, she is your problem until I finish work". Now I am sorry, but if you and your partner cannot live without two full time jobs and clearly care more about those than your children, don't have the ******* kids in the first place!

I think it is generally fair to say those with a mother who is not in full time employment are generally looks after better in terms of them going to nursery to meet other children their age, rather than because the mother doesn't want to bother with the child. Obviously in some circumstances it is not financially possible to not have two parents in full time employment, but realistically this is not normally the case - and the argument is generally only worth fighting for if the parents are not together.

I know perfectly well families CAN work when they are not the traditional family, but I do personally have the belief that the 'nuclear family' is the better way of family life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marketing

I personally believe "The Nuclear Family" is the only way of advancing.

I am basing this solely on my sisters job at a nursery. She finds, that many of the parents now both work full time, and therefore pretty much abandon their children until they HAVE to pick them up.

For example, my sister had a child who was sick a few weeks back. She phoned the mother, who was in full time employment (as was the father) to explain that the child needed to be picked up. The response? "Touch, she is your problem until I finish work". Now I am sorry, but if you and your partner cannot live without two full time jobs and clearly care more about those than your children, don't have the ******* kids in the first place!

I think it is generally fair to say those with a mother who is not in full time employment are generally looks after better in terms of them going to nursery to meet other children their age, rather than because the mother doesn't want to bother with the child. Obviously in some circumstances it is not financially possible to not have two parents in full time employment, but realistically this is not normally the case - and the argument is generally only worth fighting for if the parents are not together.

I know perfectly well families CAN work when they are not the traditional family, but I do personally have the belief that the 'nuclear family' is the better way of family life.

---

This is what I've read from your comments here Dom: A child needs two parents, one who doesn't work full time or works flexible hours and therefore has time to take care of the child etc.

Do you think that it has to be the Dad that has the full time job and the Mother who has time off? Or can Mothers have the full time jobs and the fathers look after the child? What if it's a gay couple and one works full time and the other takes care of the kid? Or what if a step parent is involved? (it doesn't have to be through divorce, a parent could have died?)

Unless your view is strictly the Dad goes to work and the Mother stays at home - you aren't in support of the nuclear family as such but more of a family with 2 parental figures, which I think is a reasonable comment as there's research that shows children with single parents can struggle with their physical, mental and social development sometimes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hopeless

Common misconception. Like I said look on any archive site which discusses news. These aren't new phenomena - they're decades old. It is just now, in the society we live in, it is easier for this news to reach us and spread so we're under the illusion that children don't have father figures and because of this are uncontrollable. Think about the world-war period when millions of fathers were absent. Were all the children running about causing havoc then, no. Of course you can argue you can't compare that era to any other but you're arguing and you're quite firm about it that you need a father figure in your life. Is not the case.

---

Actually this is not a misconception and you are mixing two completely differing issues together. Attitudes towards divorce in this country used to be only a few decades ago negative. Those who divorced were well aware that it would not be looked upon as a 'good thing' or the 'freedom of the woman', that rather it would be looked upon as unfair on the children and the splitting of a family which almost all children luckily had. In many cases this was perhaps unfair to those who divorced on good grounds (very rare however, especially today) but it at least made those thinking of divorce for their own convenience twice.

The deaths of fathers and husbands during the war is not comparable to couples divorcing on selfish grounds, as they do today. So the difference between us both is quite clear, I think the family matters and you do not - just as all cultures in decline end up, turning their backs on morality and the insitutions which bind a society together.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hopeless

Awful stereotype. I'm not sure on statistics but so many parents get divorced now, I wouldn't be surprised to see the figure at 30/40% if not slightly higher. Children will become unstable if their environment isn't stable, granted. However, there are more factors that divorce that contribute to this. If their parents argue and say perhaps one is subject to domestic abuse, those are more detrimental features on an upbringing. To say you disagree with divorce is ignorant too. When the man she thought she knew turns around one day and hits her, should she accept this just so a couple of people condone her. No. You're living in a time before 2011.

---

Actually it is true, and you will know it if you yourself have gone to school - especially a run down comprehensive school which are hotbeds of moral and cultural decline. But as usual here you are going down the domestic abuse line, which is a small proportion of divorces especially these days. Would you please tackle what the main body of divorce is;- parents divorcing because of their own selfishness, whether it be they cannot be bothered with the relationship anymore, constant arguing or another person in the frame.

I want to live in a time before 2011, you have that right - as would many those parents have selfishly divorced for ridiculous reasons say to you, or those who have never known their fathers because nobody has any self-respect for themselves or their children anymore. If you have a family you put it first, otherwise do not have a family.

Quote:

---

Which I think proves her point perfectly. They don't have the classical nuclear family and there is a strong case, like you say, that these cultures are a lot more conservative and their children perhaps have more stable environments. You contradict yourself here by suggesting that the extended family seen in Italy and Asia uphold values as opposed to the nuclear family which you still see in Britain/America and then you continue to say that the nuclear family is the family that creates the most stable environment.

---

Divorce is looked down upon in these countries, therefore whether the family is more closely binded with grandparents and so forth is another topic. Here we are arguing about whether it is better to have conservative attitudes towards the breaking up of a traditional family unit - I say no, you say yes that is a good thing.

Both our conservative model and the Asian conservative models work, your model of rampant divorce does not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hopeless

It fell much before then. Think of how many lives were lost in the war. Think of when the extended family ceased to be so popular (1920/1930s) the nuclear family is still dominant but it isn't as strong as people believe/want to believe.

---

Actually no, it fell around the 1960s - ask parents and grandparents about attitudes towards divorce, as far back as even the 1970s. I have no doubt though that those wars did have an affect in that they gave the cultural revolutionaries ammo to stage the ultimate coup de'tat during the 1930s/40s.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

Actually this is not a misconception and you are mixing two completely differing issues together. Attitudes towards divorce in this country used to be only a few decades ago negative. Those who divorced were well aware that it would not be looked upon as a 'good thing' or the 'freedom of the woman', that rather it would be looked upon as unfair on the children and the splitting of a family which almost all children luckily had. In many cases this was perhaps unfair to those who divorced on good grounds (very rare however, especially today) but it at least made those thinking of divorce for their own convenience twice.

---

I'm aware of that. That doesn't counter point what you quoted though, unless you quoted the wrong person/segment. Or maybe you're just drunk. One of them sums it up appropriately :P. I have nothing to say to that because you either made a poor link or just needed something to say in the hope I wouldn't read it. I'm perfectly aware that divorce was frowned upon and seen as a negative (divorce has never been seen as positive, except in a vast minority, usually including money), it wasn't uncommon for even in the 70s for women who had a divorce to be criticised regardless of circumstances.

Quote:

---

The deaths of fathers and husbands during the war is not comparable to couples divorcing on selfish grounds, as they do today. So the difference between us both is quite clear, I think the family matters and you do not - just as all cultures in decline end up, turning their backs on morality and the insitutions which bind a society together.

---

You can't say it isn't comparable just because it doesn't fit in with what you want to argue. Childish. Unless you're suggesting that not many fathers and husbands died throughout the 20th Century wars. You're the one comparing it to 'selfish grounds'. It is very clear that your family are still together and that has worked. It doesn't for everyone. Life is too short to do things you don't want to do. This includes being stuck with a man who you can no longer get on with just for the sake of the children. If they can detect friction and the frostiness between the two, it is detrimental to the children. Parents should not stay together just for convenience like you suggest. I wish that was the case, but I'm a realist.

Quote:

---

Actually it is true, and you will know it if you yourself have gone to school - especially a run down comprehensive school which are hotbeds of moral and cultural decline. But as usual here you are going down the domestic abuse line, which is a small proportion of divorces especially these days. Would you please tackle what the main body of divorce is;- parents divorcing because of their own selfishness, whether it be they cannot be bothered with the relationship anymore, constant arguing or another person in the frame.

---

You need to define selfishness. Are you suggesting that parents get divorced because it's easy for them? That isn't the case in the vast majority of divorces. I gave you figures and evidence in my last reply in the vain hope you'd be able to corroborate your argument with some also. That wasn't the case and you've continued to argue that adults get divorced because they want to not because they have no alternative which is so often the case. Would you prefer kids to see their parents at one another's throats all the time? Would this mean the parents aren't selfish? I'd argue the opposite.

Quote:

---

I want to live in a time before 2011, you have that right - as would many those parents have selfishly divorced for ridiculous reasons say to you, or those who have never known their fathers because nobody has any self-respect for themselves or their children anymore. If you have a family you put it first, otherwise do not have a family.

---

Again, using that word without explaining what you mean. It is selfish to stay together for the kids and make the children witness all the bad air between the two cloud their childhood. One happy parent is better than two unhappy parents.

Quote:

---

Divorce is looked down upon in these countries, therefore whether the family is more closely binded with grandparents and so forth is another topic. Here we are arguing about whether it is better to have conservative attitudes towards the breaking up of a traditional family unit - I say no, you say yes that is a good thing.

Both our conservative model and the Asian conservative models work, your model of rampant divorce does not.

---

Divorce is not looked down upon in these countries. It is very common. Just because they don't have the nuclear family like UK did/does doesn't mean you can argue they don't approve of divorces. It is not only nuclear families that are allowed to get divorced you know.

If you reply, I look forward to some evidence of selfishness and that Asian families don't get divorced.

tbh the only people that really think that this is true are narrow minded and will probably not even have a family =/


I think its stupid to even suggest that. . women are able to earn their own money aswell as men. . . and even still whats wrong with 2 men having kids(adopting) or 2 women doing the same. . . .everyone deserves a chance to have a family and i know from experience that a

"nuclear family" is a load of crap. . it didnt work for many of the people i know so why would people even think that its right. also whats the point in life for girls to have education if they are just going to stay home clean and look after children??? thats so sexiest and stupid to even say. . .


If im able to realise that its stupid then anyone that agrees is even thicker than me (AND THATS SAYING SOMETHING hi)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 22andy223

tbh the only people that really think that this is true are narrow minded and will probably not even have a family =/


I think its stupid to even suggest that. . women are able to earn their own money aswell as men. . . and even still whats wrong with 2 men having kids(adopting) or 2 women doing the same. . . .everyone deserves a chance to have a family and i know from experience that a

"nuclear family" is a load of crap. . it didnt work for many of the people i know so why would people even think that its right. also whats the point in life for girls to have education if they are just going to stay home clean and look after children??? thats so sexiest and stupid to even say. . .


If im able to realise that its stupid then anyone that agrees is even thicker than me (AND THATS SAYING SOMETHING hi)

---

LOL Andi :P Love the colour-coordination. You raise some good points though, you're not delicate with your wording are you? :P Good post, +REP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hopeless

LOL Andi :P Love the colour-coordination. You raise some good points though, you're not delicate with your wording are you? :P Good post, +REP.

---

ty colour makes it less boring to read tbh. . . n mehh im Northern Irish its how we speak lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 22andy223

tbh the only people that really think that this is true are narrow minded and will probably not even have a family =/


I think its stupid to even suggest that. . women are able to earn their own money aswell as men. . . and even still whats wrong with 2 men having kids(adopting) or 2 women doing the same. . . .everyone deserves a chance to have a family and i know from experience that a

"nuclear family" is a load of crap. . it didnt work for many of the people i know so why would people even think that its right. also whats the point in life for girls to have education if they are just going to stay home clean and look after children??? thats so sexiest and stupid to even say. . .


If im able to realise that its stupid then anyone that agrees is even thicker than me (AND THATS SAYING SOMETHING hi)

---

To be fair, what rubbish.

I am against the idea of same gender couples adopting, since I worry for the child's welfare etc when at school.

I am also against parents both having full time jobs, IF they are putting them before their children, which I have seen many times (as posted).

Oh and I hated the use of bright green, difficult to read.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hopeless

I'm aware of that. That doesn't counter point what you quoted though, unless you quoted the wrong person/segment. Or maybe you're just drunk. One of them sums it up appropriately :P. I have nothing to say to that because you either made a poor link or just needed something to say in the hope I wouldn't read it. I'm perfectly aware that divorce was frowned upon and seen as a negative (divorce has never been seen as positive, except in a vast minority, usually including money), it wasn't uncommon for even in the 70s for women who had a divorce to be criticised regardless of circumstances.

---

..you wrote 'so we're under the illusion that children don't have father figures and because of this are uncontrollable. Think about the world-war period when millions of fathers were absent. Were all the children running about causing havoc then, no. Of course you can argue you can't compare that era to any other but you're arguing and you're quite firm about it that you need a father figure in your life. Is not the case.'

I made the point that actually, you can compare today to the pre-cultural revolutionary era of the 1960s and beyond and that before these changes which you state 'we do not need a father figure' is complete and utter rubbish. So continuing, divorce was frowned upon and rightly so - because in most cases it ought to bring shame on those involved, that they place themselves before their children.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hopeless

You can't say it isn't comparable just because it doesn't fit in with what you want to argue. Childish. Unless you're suggesting that not many fathers and husbands died throughout the 20th Century wars. You're the one comparing it to 'selfish grounds'. It is very clear that your family are still together and that has worked. It doesn't for everyone. Life is too short to do things you don't want to do. This includes being stuck with a man who you can no longer get on with just for the sake of the children. If they can detect friction and the frostiness between the two, it is detrimental to the children. Parents should not stay together just for convenience like you suggest. I wish that was the case, but I'm a realist.

---

Who said anything about it having to be frosty? if divorce were harder then couples would spend much more time on firstly choosing a partner, secondly whether or not to have children with that partner, and thirdly whether or not to call off the relationship. The devaluation of marriage and of the family (which you openly support) has directly led to these problems in that divorce is no longer seen as a bad thing and that marriage doesn't have to mean anything.

I'm also keen to point out that you state (below) that I need to define cases of selfishness in divorce when you, just here, have said that 'life is too short' - is life too short that it means breaking up what should be the most important thing to oneself, the welfare of children and the family? Parents should not divorce for convenience like you suggest.

And that is how I define selfishness in divorce, with you yourself displaying it in your attitudes to priorities concerning yourself and the family.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hopeless

You need to define selfishness. Are you suggesting that parents get divorced because it's easy for them? That isn't the case in the vast majority of divorces. I gave you figures and evidence in my last reply in the vain hope you'd be able to corroborate your argument with some also. That wasn't the case and you've continued to argue that adults get divorced because they want to not because they have no alternative which is so often the case. Would you prefer kids to see their parents at one another's throats all the time? Would this mean the parents aren't selfish? I'd argue the opposite.

---

I am yes and you've just proven it above.

As for the other points as to why this is all the more common today, see response above on the attempts by you cultural revolutionaries to destroy the insitution of marriage and the family, simply dismissing it as 'not important' - it is downright important and the number of broken homes around this country are clear concrete evidence of this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hopeless

Again, using that word without explaining what you mean. It is selfish to stay together for the kids and make the children witness all the bad air between the two cloud their childhood. One happy parent is better than two unhappy parents.

---

I state again, that if divorce were harder and marriage taken more seriously (which you are opposed to) then in many cases these relationships would never reach the stage of marriage/of having children together.

A family is better than none.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hopeless

Divorce is not looked down upon in these countries. It is very common. Just because they don't have the nuclear family like UK did/does doesn't mean you can argue they don't approve of divorces. It is not only nuclear families that are allowed to get divorced you know.

---

That may becoming true as Japan and others as they have developed are falling to the same destructive attitude towards the family that you yourself display, but as these articles show - the family remains strong in Japan and elsewhere across Asia; http://www.wa-pedia.com/gaijin/weste...marriage.shtml. The more conservative countries (Asia) show a clear link between attitudes and the rates of divorce, as seen here with this map; http://www.nationmaster.com/red/grap...e-rate&b_map=1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hopeless

If you reply, I look forward to some evidence of selfishness and that Asian families don't get divorced.

---

Do not attempt to put words in my mouth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hecktix

This is what I've read from your comments here Dom: A child needs two parents, one who doesn't work full time or works flexible hours and therefore has time to take care of the child etc.

Do you think that it has to be the Dad that has the full time job and the Mother who has time off? Or can Mothers have the full time jobs and the fathers look after the child? What if it's a gay couple and one works full time and the other takes care of the kid? Or what if a step parent is involved? (it doesn't have to be through divorce, a parent could have died?)

Unless your view is strictly the Dad goes to work and the Mother stays at home - you aren't in support of the nuclear family as such but more of a family with 2 parental figures, which I think is a reasonable comment as there's research that shows children with single parents can struggle with their physical, mental and social development sometimes.

---

Only just seen this reply.. :L

I apologise, I have been brought up very traditionally - so automatically thought male working haha. Although I do think it is fine for a male to stay at home, personally it isn't for me. I am a very motivated person who aims to advance at things, so being a house husband would just be unbearable. I guess I could get called sexist, but I just think the male going out to work is more 'natural' (unless we are lions, of course). On the other hand, if the female can earn a decent bit more than I could out working, then why the hell not? But I think staying at home as a house husband would make be go mad.

I don't agree with gay couples having kids anyway, I am just of the opinion that a childs welfare etc could be at stake when they go to school etc - and again, the whole natural thing comes up of same gender people cannot have kids, so to me it isn't right - apologies if that offends anyone, but that is my opinion.

I am definitely of the opinion that a family should have 2 parental figures, but it is difficult really.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marketing

To be fair, what rubbish.

I am against the idea of same gender couples adopting, since I worry for the child's welfare etc when at school.

I am also against parents both having full time jobs, IF they are putting them before their children, which I have seen many times (as posted).

Oh and I hated the use of bright green, difficult to read.

---

also if you say about both parents working and making your statment for the children your not really making any sense for the fact you are against SAME SEX ADOPTION so im FOR ANYONE ADOPTING that can provide a child with the love and care they need. . . from experience i know that being in care is total crap and was one of worse things ever to experience. . .

also both parents dont have to be working. . the arguement is saying that THE MOTHER stays at home. . but why can the father not do that while the mother goes to work???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 22andy223

also if you say about both parents working and making your statment for the children your not really making any sense for the fact you are against SAME SEX ADOPTION so im FOR ANYONE ADOPTING that can provide a child with the love and care they need. . . from experience i know that being in care is total crap and was one of worse things ever to experience. . .

also both parents dont have to be working. . the arguement is saying that THE MOTHER stays at home. . but why can the father not do that while the mother goes to work???

---

If you read my other post(s) in this thread you would see my opinions on that :)