Is the "American family" dying?

[Carrie12345]

I think the illegitamacy rate is misleading. By illegitimate people assume single unmarried mother, there are many children these days born out of wedlock but inside very committed relationships.

 

I don't think the family is dying, I do think that

 

1/ some people are less willing now to continue to live in a bad relationship situation, whether that be violence or just complete lack of love. I see this as a GOOD thing.

 

2/ people are less willing to do the work required for a happy marriage. Many years ago my Mum told me that marriages take WORK and she is so right. When you marry, in my opinion you marry "for better or worse, richer or poorer" some people forget that and as soon as the "worse" or "poorer" comes along they are outta there. People walk away from marriages way too quickly these days and that's a BAD thing.

 

I absolutely agree with point 1. My illegitimate child has a "whole" mother and "whole" father. Had we married, he'd have a broken mother and broken father. But, golly gee, they'd be in the same home!

 

My marriage has definitely taken a lot of work. The difference between my marriage and my former relationship is that this time I chose a person who is willing to work just as hard as I am. A person can't carry a relationship by themselves. That's just not healthy for anyone involved.

 

But we're liberal atheists, so we're out of the running anyway. ;)

[lionfamily1999]

I'll take the American family over the Pakistani family every day. You will be despised and ridiculed if you leave your Muslim faith. If you are a young girl who is raped you may be either forced to marry your rapist or killed by an older brother, cousin, uncle, or father for dishonoring the family. In some parts of Pakistan, girls are taken by their mothers to have their external genitals cut off so they won't grow up to have loose morals. If someone dishonors your family in a traditional part of the country you should take vengeance not only against them but against their whole family.

 

Thanks Pakistan, but you can keep your family values.

:iagree:

 

 

 

===============================

As far as America goes, I agree with a pp who said, it's just easier to divorce here. You aren't in a position (most of the time) where you have to rely on the person you married. As a husband, you don't have to be the major bread winner, you don't have to be your wife's source of companionship. As a wife you're encouraged to have a life outside of your marraige.

 

Any more, it seems odd if married couples prefer each other's company over anyone else. I've been accused of being crazy for not wanting a vacation from dh.

 

Here, we're encouraged to be independant parts of a unit, whether or not that works. I am sure it does for some, but not for everyone and for those whom that sort of situation would not work, those who would work better in a codependant situation, it can feel as though American society is pushing you to divorce (in order to become independant, before you become married again).

 

It doesn't mean the American family is near dead. It does mean, however, that people desiring codependance or an old-fashioned marraige are going to be the ones bucking the system and have to be prepared to get the same responses that other families faced in the past. IOW, people might call you crazy, they might say you need therapy, they might even say you're destroying society... you have to be strong enough to stand up for your own beliefs (the same way single parents have in the past, when they refused to marry for the sake of society).

[Peela]

I think you have to have a narrow definition of family to think that the family is dying. There is a lot of change happening, some of it good and some of it not so good.

My father was not involved with my life as a child- he was an absent father. My husband is involved with our kids, yet our kids were born illegitimate. My parents divorced. And both are with new partners much more suited to them.

I think if you look around you can see a lot of amazing and beautiful things happening every day in families as people try and liberate themselves from constrictive values such as staying in unhappy marriages no matter what. Or, you can look around and decide what is happening is immoral (divorces, illigitimacy etc) and condemn it, and miss all the amazing stuff.

I have single mum friends- and was one myself for a while. It's not the end of the world. Life goes on, many kids are brought up well in single parent homes- and others are brought up well in two parent homes. Who is to say what is right and wrong, really?

I had this conversation with my teens recently about whether they would prefer to be born 100 years ago. We all agreed strongly that we prefer the freedom and values of today than the ones of 100 years ago. It is nice to be idealistic, but really, women and negroes didn't have the vote for goodness sakes. Kids could be abused and no one would say anything. Lots of horrible stuff happened.

It's easy to idealise the past but not very useful or practical. Times are changing, and I feel it's a good thing, but it doesnt matter what I think times will always change and there will always be people complaining about the immorality of today compared to the past. I tihnk its a way of trying to avoid growing and moving - trying to stay in some snapshot view of the world.

[MommyRyan]

I'm not sure about "the American family", but I do know the family is dying.

 

It has nothing to do with illegitimacy or gays or single mothers.

 

It is a culture that promotes being glued to the television set, overscheduling and overbooking your children to get them ahead, eight hour school days and three hours of homework, putting work and money and extracurriculars over family, marrying for the sake of getting married, divorcing because it "just didn't work", a refusal to put any effort into anything.

 

I think a kid's best bet in this world is to have someone, anyone, they can look up to who puts their family above all else. And I think we're in short supply these days. That's what concerns me.

[Joanne]

:iagree:

 

 

 

===============================

As far as America goes, I agree with a pp who said, it's just easier to divorce here. You aren't in a position (most of the time) where you have to rely on the person you married. As a husband, you don't have to be the major bread winner, you don't have to be your wife's source of companionship. As a wife you're encouraged to have a life outside of your marraige.

 

Any more, it seems odd if married couples prefer each other's company over anyone else. I've been accused of being crazy for not wanting a vacation from dh.

 

Here, we're encouraged to be independant parts of a unit, whether or not that works. I am sure it does for some, but not for everyone and for those whom that sort of situation would not work, those who would work better in a codependant situation, it can feel as though American society is pushing you to divorce (in order to become independant, before you become married again).

 

It doesn't mean the American family is near dead. It does mean, however, that people desiring codependance or an old-fashioned marraige are going to be the ones bucking the system and have to be prepared to get the same responses that other families faced in the past. IOW, people might call you crazy, they might say you need therapy, they might even say you're destroying society... you have to be strong enough to stand up for your own beliefs (the same way single parents have in the past, when they refused to marry for the sake of society).

 

Your experience and perception is nearly on the opposite end of the spectrum than mine.

 

In my world and experience, close healthy interdependent marriages are celebrated. While separate vacations are understood, they are not pushed, assumed superior or expected. Prefering your spouse's company *and* having additional focuses and interests co-exist.

 

It doesn't seem to *me* that married to each other, traditional type relationships are at risk at all. I don't see a traditionally operating, traditionally working relationship as being threatened, challenged or scorned as are (or have been) less traditional families.

 

In my experience, the push, encouragement, message, force to "stay together" is pervasive. It's sometimes in your face, sometimes subtle but it exists and is strong.

[Joanne]

I'm not sure about "the American family", but I do know the family is dying.

 

It has nothing to do with illegitimacy or gays or single mothers.

 

It is a culture that promotes being glued to the television set, overscheduling and overbooking your children to get them ahead, eight hour school days and three hours of homework, putting work and money and extracurriculars over family, marrying for the sake of getting married, divorcing because it "just didn't work", a refusal to put any effort into anything.

 

I think a kid's best bet in this world is to have someone, anyone, they can look up to who puts their family above all else. And I think we're in short supply these days. That's what concerns me.

 

Is that what you see in your world? Really?

 

In the last 10 years, I have come in daily contact with homeschoolers, with professional poker players, with mainline liberal church members, with parents of little league/PONY baseball players, with people who use daycare, with public school parents @ a public school. I see the above quoted description as a charicature, not as the reality.

 

Most families I have seen seem to be average-busy, active, kids who have invested parents AND others, adequate public schools and who watch enteraining, brainless TV at times.

 

I have rarely seen a frivilous marriage or divorce. I have seen what I believe to be an exaggeration of their existence. I have seen both in life and in my divorce support class (Christain based) plenty of hurting, raw, damaged people who would not and did not share the details of that with their friends, family and church members.

 

I have seen public school teachers, public school students and public school parents who clearly have the priority on learning and family.

[MommyRyan]

Is that what you see in your world? Really?

 

In the last 10 years, I have come in daily contact with homeschoolers, with professional poker players, with mainline liberal church members, with parents of little league/PONY baseball players, with people who use daycare, with public school parents @ a public school. I see the above quoted description as a charicature, not as the reality.

 

Most families I have seen seem to be average-busy, active, kids who have invested parents AND others, adequate public schools and who watch enteraining, brainless TV at times.

 

I have rarely seen a frivilous marriage or divorce. I have seen what I believe to be an exaggeration of their existence. I have seen both in life and in my divorce support class (Christain based) plenty of hurting, raw, damaged people who would not and did not share the details of that with their friends, family and church members.

 

I have seen public school teachers, public school students and public school parents who clearly have the priority on learning and family.

 

 

 

Yes, it's honestly what I've seen. I've only lived in Manhattan and Southern Connecticut (and overseas, but didn't have much interaction with Americans) raising my family. And I've seen tons of it. I never implied sending kids to public school makes someone a bad parent or bad family, just that the extended hours are certainly hurting the family unit. At least I didn't mean to imply it, and am sorry if I did.

 

I actually don't know any other homeschoolers in my area. All my friends send their kids to public and private school. And they have great families. And my kids watch tv. But there are kids who spend hours a day on it and rarely spend any time interacting with other family members.

 

You must be very lucky to have never come across a frivolous divorce. I'm not trying to diminish the pain that comes with going through a divorce, and I have many friends and family members who had very legitimate causes to leave marriages, but many, many people I know ended their marriage simply because it wasn't easy for them. They've said this to me, and their actions have shown it.

[lionfamily1999]

Your experience and perception is nearly on the opposite end of the spectrum than mine.

 

In my world and experience, close healthy interdependent marriages are celebrated. While separate vacations are understood, they are not pushed, assumed superior or expected. Prefering your spouse's company *and* having additional focuses and interests co-exist.

 

It doesn't seem to *me* that married to each other, traditional type relationships are at risk at all. I don't see a traditionally operating, traditionally working relationship as being threatened, challenged or scorned as are (or have been) less traditional families.

 

In my experience, the push, encouragement, message, force to "stay together" is pervasive. It's sometimes in your face, sometimes subtle but it exists and is strong.

Perhaps inside religious communities, or among religious people (although, I've heard plenty of Christians encourage others to get a divorce for the good of the children). I have found, among my secular friends, that dh and I are unusual and many of our other married friends have recommended we get therapy/counseling, because we prefer to be together. I have a handful of friends, so does dh, but given our druthers we'd rather be together. People want to diagnose us, because we prefer each other over anyone else.:lol:

 

In society, in general, today single parents are upheld as the hardest workers, most determined parents. Gay couples with children are seen as examples to follow. Now, this is outside of the religious community. Read through the responses in this thread and you will see plenty of people, not just defending, but upholding the values of nontraditional families.

 

Just one thing... even while you were saying that interdependant relationships were good, you mentioned having outside interests. Do you mean that you should have outside focus, you must have outside focus, or you can, but it's not required? I'm curious, because what I've found is that it's considered unhealthy or wrong if you share most everything.

[Joanne]

Yes, it's honestly what I've seen. I've only lived in Manhattan and Southern Connecticut (and overseas, but didn't have much interaction with Americans) raising my family. And I've seen tons of it. I never implied sending kids to public school makes someone a bad parent or bad family, just that the extended hours are certainly hurting the family unit. At least I didn't mean to imply it, and am sorry if I did.

 

I actually don't know any other homeschoolers in my area. All my friends send their kids to public and private school. And they have great families. And my kids watch tv. But there are kids who spend hours a day on it and rarely spend any time interacting with other family members.

 

You must be very lucky to have never come across a frivolous divorce. I'm not trying to diminish the pain that comes with going through a divorce, and I have many friends and family members who had very legitimate causes to leave marriages, but many, many people I know ended their marriage simply because it wasn't easy for them. They've said this to me, and their actions have shown it.

 

 

Of course there *are* kids who spend hours a day in front of screens. I don't think they are the norm, however.

 

I also believe strongly that people "outside" of a marriage rarely know the actual marriage or reasons for divorce. I'd encourage you to not judge another's divorce based on your observation or even what they've said. Divorcing people don't usually share the details and specifics with a wide circle and often prefer simple, easy explanations. While I do not like the divorce rate, I don't think it reflects superficiality in relationship beginnings or endings; I think it's much more complicated than that.

[Joanne]

Perhaps inside religious communities, or among religious people (although, I've heard plenty of Christians encourage others to get a divorce for the good of the children). I have found, among my secular friends, that dh and I are unusual and many of our other married friends have recommended we get therapy/counseling, because we prefer to be together. I have a handful of friends, so does dh, but given our druthers we'd rather be together. People want to diagnose us, because we prefer each other over anyone else.:lol:

 

In society, in general, today single parents are upheld as the hardest workers, most determined parents. Gay couples with children are seen as examples to follow. Now, this is outside of the religious community. Read through the responses in this thread and you will see plenty of people, not just defending, but upholding the values of nontraditional families.

 

Just one thing... even while you were saying that interdependant relationships were good, you mentioned having outside interests. Do you mean that you should have outside focus, you must have outside focus, or you can, but it's not required? I'm curious, because what I've found is that it's considered unhealthy or wrong if you share most everything.

 

The bolded adjectives and words are so far from my personal eperience and observation that I don't even know how to respond.

 

I don't read words about single parents with the same perspective. I don't see them offered as an ideal but reflecting the reality. Being a single parent was one of the hardest things I've done. It was easier, however, than being married but not in a cooperative, engaged, inderdependent marriage. From a logical standpoint, it seems to me that one adult doing what I believe is supposed to be done by 2 adults does necessitate hard(er) work and determiniation.

 

What I said about outside interests was they can coexist with an inderdependent marriage. (I avoid the word co-dependent for clinical definition reasons).

[lionfamily1999]

The bolded adjectives and words are so far from my personal eperience and observation that I don't even know how to respond.

 

I don't read words about single parents with the same perspective. I don't see them offered as an ideal but reflecting the reality. Being a single parent was one of the hardest things I've done. It was easier, however, than being married but not in a cooperative, engaged, inderdependent marriage. From a logical standpoint, it seems to me that one adult doing what I believe is supposed to be done by 2 adults does necessitate hard(er) work and determiniation.

 

What I said about outside interests was they can coexist with an inderdependent marriage. (I avoid the word co-dependent for clinical definition reasons).

I was a single teenage mother for nearly three years. I do not believe that my daughter was without a family during that time. I think high school was a bit harder, but never believed I deserved the kudos I got from others. With one exception, my church, I was very well supported by friends, family, and even the families of my friends. Ime, being a single mother was difficult, but did not make me a social pariah. I was very accepted, nearly everywhere, just not church :)

 

That is where I'm coming from. My family and friends did not pressure me to marry dd's biological father. My church did ;) , but that's when I moved away (spiritually) and found acceptance among my secular peers. When I say that people are more accepting, those are the people I'm talking about. Churches do tend to stick with the scriptural ideal (imo, that's as it should be), but churches are not all of society. Just a piece. There's plenty of people that do see the families of today and reality to be just as effective and just as worthy of the title "family" as the Cleavers.

 

Thank you for clarifying that last point. I was not sure what you meant.

[Margaret in GA]

I'm not sure about "the American family", but I do know the family is dying.

 

It has nothing to do with illegitimacy or gays or single mothers.

 

It is a culture that promotes being glued to the television set, overscheduling and overbooking your children to get them ahead, eight hour school days and three hours of homework, putting work and money and extracurriculars over family, marrying for the sake of getting married, divorcing because it "just didn't work", a refusal to put any effort into anything.

 

I think a kid's best bet in this world is to have someone, anyone, they can look up to who puts their family above all else. And I think we're in short supply these days. That's what concerns me.

 

I think there is a lot of truth in this post. I see far too many child-centered families and I consider that a threat to families in general. I do think parents tend to idealize relationships outside the home for their children (ie playdates with peers have more value than playing with your sibling at home). And I do think over-scheduling our kids is destructive to the family... whether it forces us to eat junk food between school and lessons,or before and after games or causes us to miss those spontaneous moments of life that make us mentally healthy. I do not think gays are a threat to familes nor do I think divorce is all bad. But, I see that life is terribly complex nowadays and we have only ourselves to blame for that.

[LibraryLover]

divorce is all bad. But, I see that life is terribly complex nowadays and we have only ourselves to blame for that.

 

So life didn't used to be complex?

[PineFarmMom]

He cites marriage and divorce rates, out of wedlock childbirth, and various gov't programs which reward immoral behavior. (Please remember that this is HIS assessment, not mine, so no flames please!) The arguement is that immorality is so rampant that the family cannot survive against it and that this will create a weak population which can be easily led, so long as the gov't benefits keep coming.

 

 

 

I don't disagree with his opinion. I particularly feel that the bolded and parrticularly the underlined parts are going to have severe negative effects in years to come. Now, whether that means the death of the "American family", I don't know about that. I believe God is strengthening many families at this point in time to make up for the immorality that is rampant.

 

Dh had a discussion with our neighbor this week who is a parole officer. She said there are just so many people she deals with on a daily basis who have decided to hand over their freedom to the govt. in order to have no drive and no goals and just take what they can get so as not to have to work for their $$. She said she is seeing that there is just no ambition and there is satisfaction in accepting whatever just so they can continue on in their laziness. This is being passed on to the next generation, as these people are having children and raising them with the same mentality. :( So sad!! It's a picture of a part of what is going so wrong right now.

[Margaret in GA]

So life didn't used to be complex?

 

 

Life has always been a struggle, but I think much of our struggle these days is our own doing. Instead of the family being a united front against the forces of the world, we divide ourselves internally.

[Margaret in GA]

I don't disagree with his opinion. I particularly feel that the bolded and parrticularly the underlined parts are going to have severe negative effects in years to come. Now, whether that means the death of the "American family", I don't know about that. I believe God is strengthening many families at this point in time to make up for the immorality that is rampant.

 

Dh had a discussion with our neighbor this week who is a parole officer. She said there are just so many people she deals with on a daily basis who have decided to hand over their freedom to the govt. in order to have no drive and no goals and just take what they can get so as not to have to work for their $$. She said she is seeing that there is just no ambition and there is satisfaction in accepting whatever just so they can continue on in their laziness. This is being passed on to the next generation, as these people are having children and raising them with the same mentality. :( So sad!! It's a picture of a part of what is going so wrong right now.

I think most people would rather have a good paying job than a government check. The fact is, you cannot pay someone $7.50 an hour and not expect that they'll need some government assistance for the rest of their living expenses.

[Impish]

I was a single parent for over a decade when I married Wolf. (For those doing the math, yes, I have a child older than Diva, but he doesn't live with me...long unhappy story)

 

I have said to Wolf, on more than one occasion, "No wonder it takes two people to make a baby...because it really does take two to raise one!"

 

I stand by that 100%. As a single mom, there is no WAY I could give my children what a dad could have. As a single mom, I was always 'on' and never had downtime in the slightest...which means I was always frayed and stressed.

 

Being married has made parenting so much more of a joy. I have the time and energy to enjoy my children...its not all eaten up by fear of how to keep the finances in order, and keeping a roof over our heads, and food on the table.

 

I worked up to three jobs at a time as a single parent. Before I was injured, I worked because I loved my career, and it gave my husband a break, and time to get his own biz together.

 

I completely, totally, utterly disagree that a single parent, male or female, can possibly give their child what a married parents situation can.

 

No, I'm not advocating for ppl staying in abuse. Absolutely not! But the light way single parenthood is treated does children a disservice, imo. The basic shrug when a young teen gets pregnant gives me the willies. Parenthood, single parenthood, needs to be taken more seriously than that.

[PineFarmMom]

I think most people would rather have a good paying job than a government check. The fact is, you cannot pay someone $7.50 an hour and not expect that they'll need some government assistance for the rest of their living expenses.

 

The bolded part: I used to believe that, but I don't anymore. I've seen too much of the attitude that whatever the govt. does is fine, just so long as the $$ keeps coming. It's very rampant in this area. People are so rewarded for laziness and bad decisions that they are destined to be slaves to the govt. :(

[Greta]

I've found that Christians seem to hold their spouses to a certain level. The thinking that "Well, you are a Christian and you should be behaving on *this* level and you should not be doing A, B, and C." Holding people up like that is only going to lead to disappointment. People disappoint. And because Christians think that their spouse should "know better and act better because they are a Christian" leads to a lot of fights, disappointments, and eventually, divorces. I've heard a pastor preach on that subject one time and I think he was right on.

 

I was an atheist when I got married, and I assure you I had pretty high standards and expectations regarding my husband! :D I actually think it's something slightly different going on, and I am basing this on experience with extended family members.

 

I think that many churches teach that marriages outside of the church are fundamentally flawed and will suffer strains, but those within the church are blessed and will be stronger (at least, that's what was taught when I was growing up, and was the dynamic with the family members I am thinking of). This is a really nice idea in a lot of ways, that marriages in the church are blessed by God, and I'm not necessarily saying I disagree with it. BUT the downside of it is that I think it sets people up with an expectation that their marriage is going to be a cakewalk because God is in their corner. And if God's looking out for them and has bonded them together, then, well, that probably means a lot less work on their part, and everything is going to go smoothly. Right?

 

Wrong! I think some people, based upon this expectation, are ill-equipped to deal with the realities of marriage.

 

And please understand, I am not blaming the church I grew up in or any other church for this. But I do think, at least in some cases, the church could take a more active role in preparing couples for the realities of marriage, and do more than simply performing the actual wedding ceremony and that's that.

[Joanne]

The bolded part: I used to believe that, but I don't anymore. I've seen too much of the attitude that whatever the govt. does is fine, just so long as the $$ keeps coming. It's very rampant in this area. People are so rewarded for laziness and bad decisions that they are destined to be slaves to the govt.

 

Maybe. There is also the reality that the system is structured in ways that hurt you to get off of it. For example, when my kids were on medicaid (a choice made necessary by someone else's decisions, not mine), no supplemental insurance was allowed.

 

For families on Food Stamps (and I understand TANF is the same way), often the decrease in assistance is *more* than the increase in income so the net if you get a job or more hours hurts you instead of helps or makes it even.

 

I used to believe a lot differently about the system until I experienced it myself.

[Mrs Mungo]

So life didn't used to be complex?

 

:iagree: People used to have a bunch of kids because 1. they needed the help on the farm and 2. at least some of them would die before they were grown. Those kids worked on the farm as soon as they could. Not watching tv didn't mean they were less busy or more close. I think some of the implications on this thread are a bit far fetched. The "family" has never been perfect. It's not perfect in any country, every way of life has its flaws.

 

I think most people would rather have a good paying job than a government check. The fact is, you cannot pay someone $7.50 an hour and not expect that they'll need some government assistance for the rest of their living expenses.

 

I agree. According to various calculators you would need to make almost $14/hour here in Hawaii in order to make a living wage for a single person. If you are married and have two kids that goes up to $35/hour. And yet a large percentage of the jobs are low-paying tourist-industry jobs.

 

The bolded part: I used to believe that, but I don't anymore. I've seen too much of the attitude that whatever the govt. does is fine, just so long as the $$ keeps coming. It's very rampant in this area. People are so rewarded for laziness and bad decisions that they are destined to be slaves to the govt. :(

 

I disagree that laziness is necessarily the reason for this. If you don't pay people a living wage and your economy is based on low-paying service-industry jobs then they probably receive more money from the government than they would if they had a job. Offering food stamps and WIC to people whose jobs don't pay enough to support them is subsidizing those industries as much as it is helping to support the people involved. In a lot of cases education is also at fault. We can't pretend every school district is equal, that every child has the same opportunity.

[KidsHappen]

Of course there *are* kids who spend hours a day in front of screens. I don't think they are the norm, however.

 

I also believe strongly that people "outside" of a marriage rarely know the actual marriage or reasons for divorce. I'd encourage you to not judge another's divorce based on your observation or even what they've said. Divorcing people don't usually share the details and specifics with a wide circle and often prefer simple, easy explanations. While I do not like the divorce rate, I don't think it reflects superficiality in relationship beginnings or endings; I think it's much more complicated than that.

 

Yeah, I am not seeing the whole in front of the TV thing either. Amoung my children's social circles schedules are so jam packed that kids are constantly busy. No time for tv. I do think I see an usual amount of SAHM here though. Very few of the mother's work and most of them have kids in PS.

 

I also agree with your second point. I think maybe two people know the real reason my first hubby and I got divorced. The reasons were complicated and my children would have been hurt to know so I didn't feel the need to explain. I have always been someone who really doesn't care what other's think though so it didn't cause me any of the normal issues that divorced people deal with.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

No, not unless one has a very specific definition of family. I guess many would agree that a single person living alone does not constitute a family. So are there a whole bunch of single people?

 

My dear friend who lives with her cats would beg to differ;) I think there are a fair number. I was single for quite some time and not because I chose it;)

[Tea Time]

IBut a creepy futuristic thought where there would be no family is perhaps a world where everyone is single and lives in a locker or pod of some sort where they only interact in a business like way with other people. That would be what I would envision as the end of family.

 

That is creepy! I'm just hermit enough to be attracted to it, too! Yikes! I might like my "pod" if I didn't have to do other people's dishes and pick up their socks! LOL! My nice, neat, little pod! I'm strangely attracted to the idea of this neat and tidy existence without the burden of "relationships." *shiver*

 

***** I know what you would say, and it would sound like wisdom, if it were not for the warning in my heart ****** (Lord of the Rings) (I should put that on my sig line given that it applies to so many things.)

 

Have you read Brave New World? That gives a picture of civilization where there is no family.

 

I think the interesting thing about that book is that Huxley does not spell out his own judgment on the picture he paints, he leaves it totally up to the reader to pass judgment (Although I think it is pretty clear what he thinks, you could argue against my own POV on it). Lately I have gotten the distinct impression that there are a lot of people, far more than when the book was written, that would think the civilization he predicts would be absolutely great. That is the one thing I don't think he would have predicted about the future of his book.

[Tea Time]

No I never read that book, but now I'm intrigued.

 

I could almost be on board with the concept simply because I'm an introvert. However, the 3 people in my life who mean the absolute most to me and make life worth living are my husband and two sons (my family). I can't imagine my life without them. I would give up privacy and my pod any day to be with them (even if that means I have to clean up after them).

 

 

:iagree:

Me too! Got my 3 people, too, and you are exactly right!

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

I don't mean to pick on single people. But a creepy futuristic thought where there would be no family is perhaps a world where everyone is single and lives in a locker or pod of some sort where they only interact in a business like way with other people. That would be what I would envision as the end of family. My Dad lives with my sister and her boyfriend. They live very much like a family. My sister cannot have children. My mother died so my father is without her. My sister's boyfriend is divorced. Again, they still live very much like a family. They help each other out.

 

 

I think the arrangement that your Dad has is great and better than living alone. I actually believe in and desire extended families. I think it makes for a better life both emotionally and economically to have extended families living together as was more common in days gone by. I realize however that is not always feasible nor desirable. When I was born, my parents lived with his parents. In that same house that several apartments, lived my great grandparents, aunts, great aunts and uncles, cousins, etc.:) Currently, my uncle lives with my parents. I hope someday to have them all with my family if I can. I just really like the idea of extended families.