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

[Hopeless]

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 ) 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.

...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.

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.

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.

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.

[AgnesIO]

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.

[Hecktix]

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.

[-:Undertaker:-]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Hopeless]

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 . 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Andii]

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)

[Hopeless]

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

[Andii]

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

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

[AgnesIO]

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.

[-:Undertaker:-]

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 . 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.