The Nuclear Family Was a Mistake
theatlantic.com
The Nuclear Family Was a Mistake
1–10 of 23 posts
Re: The Nuclear Family Was a Mistake
#2What a butthurt article. This is why the Atlantic is not very profitable nor popular.
Re: The Nuclear Family Was a Mistake
#3What most people can no longer afford - i.e. an entire house for one nuclear family must therefor be recast as undesirable
Re: The Nuclear Family Was a Mistake
#4It seems like the author had an idea, then looked for anything that could help support the idea. The problem is the person only looks at the facts through their original idea.
Re: The Nuclear Family Was a Mistake
#5Extended families have more people to share the unexpected burdens—when a kid gets sick in the middle of the day or when an adult unexpectedly loses a job.
Very true. Nowadays society/state is supposed to replace what extended families provide, but they can not replace the warmth of the family.
Re: The Nuclear Family Was a Mistake
#6Extended families have more people to share the unexpected burdens—when a kid gets sick in the middle of the day or when an adult unexpectedly loses a job. Very true. Nowadays society/state is supposed to replace what extended families provide, but they can not replace the warmth of the family.
This idea seems to be at the very core of the liberal / conservative divide, especially in America.
Conservatives believe that the extended family, local community groups and churches best provide support for unexpected burdens.
Liberals believe that the state and government should provide this support.
Re: The Nuclear Family Was a Mistake
#7Extended families have more people to share the unexpected burdens—when a kid gets sick in the middle of the day or when an adult unexpectedly loses a job. Very true. Nowadays society/state is supposed to replace what extended families provide, but they can not replace the warmth of the family.
This idea seems to be at the very core of the liberal / conservative divide, especially in America. Conservatives believe that the extended family, local community groups and churches best provide support for unexpected burdens. Liberals believe that the state and government should provide this support.
> Liberals believe that the state and government should provide this support.
Perhaps this was just careless wording, but I challenge you to find a liberal who thinks the state should replace the family in this regard.
Liberal policies in the west are overwhelmingly framed in terms of safeguards and safety nets. For example, it would be great if churches and family structures would prevent homelessness, but when that fails, what is to be done? For liberals, the answer naturally involves a state enterprise.
Re: The Nuclear Family Was a Mistake
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
This idea seems to be at the very core of the liberal / conservative divide, especially in America. Conservatives believe that the extended family, local community groups and churches best provide support for unexpected burdens. Liberals believe that the state and government should provide this support.
> Liberals believe that the state and government should provide this support. Perhaps this was just careless wording, but I challenge you to find a liberal who thinks the state should replace the family in this regard. Liberal policies in the west are overwhelmingly framed in terms of safeguards and safety nets. For example, it would be great if churches and family structures would prevent homelessness, but when that…
> Liberal policies in the west are overwhelmingly framed in terms of safeguards and safety nets. For example, it would be great if churches and family structures would prevent homelessness, but when that fails, what is to be done?
That depends where in the West. In America, certainly there remains a place for churches and philantrophic clubs even among liberals who want a strong state-provided safety net. But if you look to e.g. Finland, the Church (there Lutheran and Orthodox) has stepped away from any real charity role now that there is a welfare state. One doesn’t tithe directly to one’s church, but instead a portion of one’s tax money goes directly to the Church one is a registered member of, and that money generally just pays that Church’s administrative bills instead of being spent on societal woes. That is, even the Church believes that the state is broadly a more effective force for these things than private charitable endeavours. Lions Clubs and Rotary Clubs still exist in the Nordic countries, but there are very niche compared to elsewhere.
Re: The Nuclear Family Was a Mistake
#9Extended families have more people to share the unexpected burdens—when a kid gets sick in the middle of the day or when an adult unexpectedly loses a job. Very true. Nowadays society/state is supposed to replace what extended families provide, but they can not replace the warmth of the family.
This assumes extended families exist.
Unfortunately, incarceration, low life expectancy, poor fitness, alternative lifestyles, minorities, poverty (and criminalization of poverty), and immigration have strong correlations to not having as much family available and not being accepted by the church.
Re: The Nuclear Family Was a Mistake
#10It seems like the author had an idea, then looked for anything that could help support the idea. The problem is the person only looks at the facts through their original idea.
Isn't that pretty much a summary of everything David Brooks writes? I can't figure out how he keeps his job with the NY Times given his drivel.