• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why does Society Hate Families? Part II

What is the reason that we see less and less Traditional Family Structure?

  • Affirmative Action Opened All the Right Doors...

    Votes: 2 5.7%
  • Girls Just Wanna Have Fun!

    Votes: 3 8.6%
  • It is extremely complex issue...

    Votes: 30 85.7%

  • Total voters
    35
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think that the traditional values of the woman being the housewife and the man being the money maker are breaking down. In my opinion this is mainly due to more women having jobs and waiting to marry. Now that they are almost expected to go out and get jobs they can support themselves and therefore don't have to marry.
---
Many familys have to depend on both spouces working to get a mortage.
Women were or are forced into this position of going to work to supplement their husbands income.

Years ago one mans income from a very small paying job was enough for a mortage.
 
I think that you have it backwards...

Market prices were driven up due to the fact that two income families trying to get ahead drove the prices of housing up. Simple supply and demand. Other families then felt that in ordet ot maintain their standard of living, they too whould have two incomes...and so on. Soon, it becomes a mindset that, "gee, families have to have two incomes in order to survive nowadays" rather than realizing that it is all just supply and demand and that people are making a choice to have two careers rather than to devote time to their children and family. People that choose this route are forced to move from places like California were the new "standard of living" is much too high for a single income family to afford since most of the others are now brainwashed into believing the new story.

THEN, you have a whole new mindset that extends beyond that. One that we have seen here and I have seen in the real world...one that bears witness to working mothers degrading stay at home mothers. There are many psychological reasons for such justifications...and these two issue amongst others are simply things that I am trying to point out.

See...what sucks is that I get labled a bad guy for not being PC about this. For not holding up working mothers as a goal that all women should strive for. Society is turning against traditional families and it doesn't even realize it. It is just sad to witness.
 
There are many families where both parents absolutely have to work but there are many more where one parent could stay home but that would mean giving up some material things and many are too selfish to do so.

talloulou--Is this from a source or is it opinion?
 
talloulou--Is this from a source or is it opinion?

It's what I've witnessed. I'll have women tell me that I'm sooooo lucky I can stay home with my kids. They tell me they couldn't afford to. These same women tend to have bigger houses, bigger tv's, more cars, more toys in general, spend more on their wardrobes, and pay out the arse for child care. If they really wanted to, it's my opinion, that they could stay home. They just don't consider sacrificing their current lifestyle to be worth the price so they opt to not stay home.

There are couples where both must work. When they tell me I'm lucky to be able to stay home I agree with them. I am lucky.

But there are other women who tell me I'm lucky and I try to explain to them that they could do it too with a little sacrifice. The choice isn't out of reach for them, financially. They just have to choose to how to spend their money and prioritize what's important.

What I've found from talking to many women is that they don't necessarily have a problem sacrificing the big house, the big tvs, the cars, ect. They have a problem giving up their independence. They were raised to not rely financially on a man and they're more comfortable in their relationships when they bring in a good portion of the money. They wouldn't feel "equal" to their spouse if he made money and they didn't. This is what they won't sacrifice. Relying on their spouse to make all the money makes them decidedly nervous and uncomfortable and there's some type of underlying fear there. Their independence is the issue. In their minds if they stayed home their husband would have the upper hand so to speak.

I don't really feel that way and so I don't really quite understand it or get it. But I think their desire for self sufficiency is more of a factor than their desire for all the luxuries. They like knowing that leaving would be easy and doable if leaving ever becomes necessary.

'Course none of them EVER put it to me like that so much as I interpreted it to be like that from what they've said. So I could be wrong. That's just my psychoanalysis of many of my friends who make enough money to easily live off one salary if they really wanted to.
 
I don't really feel that way and so I don't really quite understand it or get it. But I think their desire for self sufficiency is more of a factor than their desire for all the luxuries. They like knowing that leaving would be easy and doable if leaving ever becomes necessary.

That and the fact that if the spouse/partner left or died they could still be self sufficient.

I can't imagine living without that kind of security.
 
There are many families where both parents absolutely have to work but there are many more where one parent could stay home but that would mean giving up some material things and many are too selfish to do so.

I'm trying to figure this post out, so bear with me.

Are you saying women who work (for whatever reasons), while they have children living at home, are selfish?
 
I'm trying to figure this post out, so bear with me.

Are you saying women who work (for whatever reasons), while they have children living at home, are selfish?

No, not all of them. But some of them definitely. But then again my reasons for staying home are selfish as well.

I think it's beneficial for someone to stay home particularly and especially when the kids are very young. Many many people will say it's financially impossible for someone to stay home. In a good portion of those cases, that's simply not true. They are selfishly choosing to both work because they want to, which is distinctly different from "needing" to.
 
No, not all of them. But some of them definitely. But then again my reasons for staying home are selfish as well.

I think it's beneficial for someone to stay home particularly and especially when the kids are very young. Many many people will say it's financially impossible for someone to stay home. In a good portion of those cases, that's simply not true. They are selfishly choosing to both work because they want to, which is distinctly different from "needing" to.

I still don't see it.

I know your opinion is that it's beneficial for someone to stay home with young children.

You also said there are differences in wanting to work and needing to work.

Neither of those statements answered my question.

Are you saying that women are selfish if they work (for any reason) when they have children living at home?
 
Last edited:
I still don't see it.

I know your opinion is that it's beneficial for someone to stay home with young children.

You also said there are differences in wanting to work and needing to work.

Neither of those statements answered my question.

Are you saying that women are selfish if they work (for any reason) when they have children living at home?

If the family can financially afford for someone to stay home and no one does then yes. Absolutely. Kids who are too young for school need a full time parent. They simply aren't going to get the same level of care at a daycare then they would get from a parent who committed to giving them the time and focused on making them the number one priority.
 
If the family can financially afford for someone to stay home and no one does then yes. Absolutely. Kids who are too young for school need a full time parent. They simply aren't going to get the same level of care at a daycare then they would get from a parent who committed to giving them the time and focused on making them the number one priority.

This has been my point as well.

Those that can financially support their family with no problem, yet decide to get a nanny, or put their kid in day care instead of staying home and teaching them and doing imaginative play and all the things that a parent could and should do instead of getting a substitute...

And on top of all of that and if all things are considered equal, it is better to have two parents, one female and one male, one mother and one father... than to not.
 
I recognize that I am entering this late, so if I am taking this out of context, forgive me. Respectfully, Bodi, I disagree. I hate hearing statements like this. I am not a parent. Yet, as an adolescent therapist, I often must help parents with ways to help parent their children. I am very good at it and use my knowledge of being parented, my knowledge of relationships between people, and my knowledge and observations of both the kid and the parents. Making suggestions is not something I take lightly. I don't adhere to the adage that if you've never walked in my shoes, you can't give me advice. Perhaps my training gives me a leg up, but when a parent says something to me like, 'well you're not a parent, so what do you know', I'll often say, 'well you are and things aren't going well...don't close your mind to a suggestion.'

Suggestions are fine. Truly. But if a person has not walked in anothers shoes, then they simply don't truly understand. I mean, I "understand" many things about what it must be like to be a woman in birth, I have been to two births... but I wouldn't presume to tell a woman who has gone through it what it is like or to give advice about it. I might say what I observed, but that is about it.

Non-parents giving parents advice is fine and all... but until they are getting up 6 times a night burping and feeding a baby, trying to get it back to sleep and the baby not, etc, then a non-parents opinion about what it must be like to have a lack of sleep or whatnot is pure crap, unless they have a sleep issue that relates.

Insight is different than understanding.

Can a non-parent have good advice? Sure... but that is not the issue.
 
In my opinion, it is the high level of stress placed on survival needs combined with consumerism and the emphasis being placed on consumer productivity that has greatly broken down the family structure. At first glance we could easily say that this is the final outcome of the civil rights movement but I don't think it is at all. Civil rights and specifically gender equalization are not about abolishing families but about making roles more dynamic and interchangeable. People have more pressure put on them to make money so they can accumulate goods than ever before.

If you live in a big city or suburb, it takes so much effort to just survive that the idea of raising children sounds preposterous. Relationships break down easier because there is less time for bonding and establishing deep connections; people have to balance their survivalist lives with maintaining functional, productive and satisfying relationships.
 
In my opinion, it is the high level of stress placed on survival needs combined with consumerism and the emphasis being placed on consumer productivity that has greatly broken down the family structure. At first glance we could easily say that this is the final outcome of the civil rights movement but I don't think it is at all. Civil rights and specifically gender equalization are not about abolishing families but about making roles more dynamic and interchangeable. People have more pressure put on them to make money so they can accumulate goods than ever before.

If you live in a big city or suburb, it takes so much effort to just survive that the idea of raising children sounds preposterous. Relationships break down easier because there is less time for bonding and establishing deep connections; people have to balance their survivalist lives with maintaining functional, productive and satisfying relationships.

Well stated. I wonder if the state of society is not something that, since we created it, we can alter? Why do families need two incomes? Because they want and want. This is mostly a middle class thing, to be sure.

Families don't "need" a nice two stroy, four bedroom house with a drying machine for their clothes if they have a mom and dad and one kid. They don't need an Audi or a Volvo. They don't "need" a big TV or Stereo system. They "want" that stuff. Materialism... like you say.

It does take effort, but why don't people stop trying to Keep up with the Jones's? Be content with what they have and/or minimalize their wants so that one parent can stay home for the first five years and be home when the kids get home from school, etc? It isn't that hard to do really, and the value to the kid is basically infinite.
 
Well stated. I wonder if the state of society is not something that, since we created it, we can alter? Why do families need two incomes? Because they want and want. This is mostly a middle class thing, to be sure.

Families don't "need" a nice two stroy, four bedroom house with a drying machine for their clothes if they have a mom and dad and one kid. They don't need an Audi or a Volvo. They don't "need" a big TV or Stereo system. They "want" that stuff. Materialism... like you say.

It does take effort, but why don't people stop trying to Keep up with the Jones's? Be content with what they have and/or minimalize their wants so that one parent can stay home for the first five years and be home when the kids get home from school, etc? It isn't that hard to do really, and the value to the kid is basically infinite.

The answer to your questions, it's that we (and by "we" I tend to refer to North America) have created a culture of entitlement, and then supplanted the economy of that culture into other parts of the world via globalization, where is now proliferates. It's why we are facing global financial collapse: the culture of material accumulation at all costs.

I worked on an organic farm in Ontario a few years ago, just for a few weeks, and they have a self-sustaining system there where the vast majority of their needs were met. While my life revolves around more than life on the farm, I can't help but wonder about how humanity is being ghettoized in this creation of ours. The majority of the world's populations now live in cities. Coincidence?

To answer your question about reversing this trend... yes, we did create it, with our very imaginations. It didn't just come out of nowhere. But to change it... hmmm... that would be complicated at this point. There first must be awareness, which is lacking, followed by will to change, which is lacking even more. Like most human eras, I suspect the shift will happen traumatically after the next financial collapse, which will be happening within the next few years.
 
Well stated. I wonder if the state of society is not something that, since we created it, we can alter? Why do families need two incomes? Because they want and want. This is mostly a middle class thing, to be sure.

It does take effort, but why don't people stop trying to Keep up with the Jones's? Be content with what they have and/or minimalize their wants so that one parent can stay home for the first five years and be home when the kids get home from school, etc? It isn't that hard to do really, and the value to the kid is basically infinite.

It is a very complicated issue, and not just one thing or the other. Several cultural and societal changes have happened since the 50's that have made it very difficult to live on just one income, unless at least one of a "couple" has higher than average earnings. Just paying basic rent, food, and bills is difficult for many middle and lower income young people these days. I suspect that the women's movement had at least a peripheral effect, and when high numbers of women started entering the workforce, economic factors adjusted accordingly. That's just a guess on my part.

Another factor seems to be that kids, for whatever reason, don't seem to be learning effective relationship skills, and they give up on a marriage without any seemingly good reason. My personal observations over the past 30 years is that women tend to be the partner who wants out of the relationship the vast majority of the time (hope I don't get flamed by the other women her for saying that). 50-60 years ago, this was not common, probably because women depended on men to financially care for them.

And then the kids. The children are the real casualty in what has happened to marriage and divorce rates. Rare is the young woman who seems to want to stay home and nurture her children. Even the ones I know personally, who can afford to do so, don't have the desire. When I was young and having babies, it would have broken my heart to leave them with someone else. I ate lots of mac-and-cheese back then.;)
 
However, I am worried about family dynamics. Ensuring that kids are raised in homes with supportive parents and financial security is important to society as a whole. I'd suggest the we move towards a lot more part time jobs. This would allow both parents to work and raise kids. Kids would get attention from both parents and financial issues would be more stable because of 2 sources of income.

Part-time jobs equal zero health care. Financial issues would definitely not be more stable.
 
God, I hope I am not too late.

Does the Op take into account the fact that the majority of women who are single are over 50? Or way way past their prime? That's why there are more single women than men.
Also, many young women are fools. Who choose to stay with men who mistreat them and end up having their children. These children will be like the father-mean and abusive- or will be looking for men like the father. By the time the women wakes up and realizes that that guy will NEVER change she dumps him and by that time she is in her 40s which is too late giving the good guy a chance because the good guy is already taken or still single and not looking.
I once read an article that said 25% of males will never marry in their life and that 15% of males will marry a foreign women. Why is that happening? Not because males expect for women to be submissive but because most women want to change a male.
And to many young women have the children of men that are not good and this makes them instantly unattractive to good guys, I hate breaking it to you but most guys do not want to raise another guys child especially when she is still in her early to mid 20s. How could anyone have a child that soon?

I don't mean to hate on anyone but really women need to start looking closer to the males they are picking out to have relationships/children with.
 
In my opinion, it is the high level of stress placed on survival needs combined with consumerism and the emphasis being placed on consumer productivity that has greatly broken down the family structure. At first glance we could easily say that this is the final outcome of the civil rights movement but I don't think it is at all. Civil rights and specifically gender equalization are not about abolishing families but about making roles more dynamic and interchangeable. People have more pressure put on them to make money so they can accumulate goods than ever before.

If you live in a big city or suburb, it takes so much effort to just survive that the idea of raising children sounds preposterous. Relationships break down easier because there is less time for bonding and establishing deep connections; people have to balance their survivalist lives with maintaining functional, productive and satisfying relationships.

America is becoming the epicenter of material excess. People are obsessed with accumulating possessions and increasing their "status". They confuse these things with fulfillment because the mass media has essentially brainwashed them with non-stop advertising.

If I ever have kids I'm going to limit their TV intake. Allowing impressionable young children to sit in front of a glowing propaganda box for hours at a time can't be healthy.
 
America is becoming the epicenter of material excess. People are obsessed with accumulating possessions and increasing their "status". They confuse these things with fulfillment because the mass media has essentially brainwashed them with non-stop advertising.

If I ever have kids I'm going to limit their TV intake. Allowing impressionable young children to sit in front of a glowing propaganda box for hours at a time can't be healthy.

You can't blame the TV!!! The parent support needs to be there for the children. Parents don't want to be parents thats why society is failing. I thought you knew this?
For example, back when I was a kid we all watched the simpsons and one day we found out that this kid wasn't allowed to watch the simpsons because his parents feared that he would learn "bad things," from the simpsons like swear words and violence. Well what happened? He learned swear words from us because we always used them. And we enjoyed playground fighting everyday after school which he a lot of times participated in them.
 
You can't blame the TV!!! The parent support needs to be there for the children. Parents don't want to be parents thats why society is failing. I thought you knew this?

I agree, and this was essentially my point, i.e., parents should raise their children instead of sitting them down in front of a TV until they're eighteen.

I was just pointing out why TV and other forms of mass media can be so damaging to the psyche of an impressionable young child. Whenever I see a product being marketed specifically to children the commercial is always slightly off-putting; it's like mental sludge is being pumped into your brain.

Parents need to get their kids away from the TV set and involve them in some real activities where bonding can occur more effectively. Camping, sports, reading, etc.

For example, back when I was a kid we all watched the simpsons and one day we found out that this kid wasn't allowed to watch the simpsons because his parents feared that he would learn "bad things," from the simpsons like swear words and violence. Well what happened? He learned swear words from us because we always used them. And we enjoyed playground fighting everyday after school which he a lot of times participated in them.

I'm not saying I'm going to restrict TV altogether, but I'll certainly moniter and manage their TV-watching habits.
 
The answer to your questions, it's that we (and by "we" I tend to refer to North America) have created a culture of entitlement, and then supplanted the economy of that culture into other parts of the world via globalization, where is now proliferates. It's why we are facing global financial collapse: the culture of material accumulation at all costs.

I worked on an organic farm in Ontario a few years ago, just for a few weeks, and they have a self-sustaining system there where the vast majority of their needs were met. While my life revolves around more than life on the farm, I can't help but wonder about how humanity is being ghettoized in this creation of ours. The majority of the world's populations now live in cities. Coincidence?

To answer your question about reversing this trend... yes, we did create it, with our very imaginations. It didn't just come out of nowhere. But to change it... hmmm... that would be complicated at this point. There first must be awareness, which is lacking, followed by will to change, which is lacking even more. Like most human eras, I suspect the shift will happen traumatically after the next financial collapse, which will be happening within the next few years.

We lived in Napa and the Russian River Valley for years, and there is a massive organic and self-sustained movement in that area. my wife and I made a big effort to have her be able to stay home with our daughters. She is just now going back to work now that they are five and six years old. She worked some when during the hours that they were in pre-school and such
 
I agree, and this was essentially my point, i.e., parents should raise their children instead of sitting them down in front of a TV until they're eighteen.

I was just pointing out why TV and other forms of mass media can be so damaging to the psyche of an impressionable young child. Whenever I see a product being marketed specifically to children the commercial is always slightly off-putting; it's like mental sludge is being pumped into your brain.

Parents need to get their kids away from the TV set and involve them in some real activities where bonding can occur more effectively. Camping, sports, reading, etc.

I'm not saying I'm going to restrict TV altogether, but I'll certainly moniter and manage their TV-watching habits.


We massively restrict their TV, especially during their first 5 years. Their first three years they only watched Mary Poppins and the Sound of Music once in a while, now they see more, but not much. We did this to help them engage in their creative play side. Use their imagination. It worked. They are extremely imaginative and just play and play even if the tv is on many times whereas we see other kids many times obsessing about tv and quoting commercials and such.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom