Great article on the reality of "The american family"

[Stephe]

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2012/01/changing_reality_american_family.html

"Public discussion about American families often assumes the nation is largely made up of married heterosexual couples raising their biological children. In fact, Census Bureau data show that less than a quarter of all U.S. households fall into this category."

So much for -family values are about embracing heterosexual marriage- The lies have to end NOW!!

[Jamie D]

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2012/01/changing_reality_american_family.html

"Public discussion about American families often assumes the nation is largely made up of married heterosexual couples raising their biological children. In fact, Census Bureau data show that less than a quarter of all U.S. households fall into this category."

So much for -family values are about embracing heterosexual marriage- The lies have to end NOW!!

Thank you for posting the article, Stephe, but your conclusion is a non sequitur.

From the data presented in the article we can get a better perspective about the traditional, nuclear, American family.

The first statement you quote compares "married heterosexual couples with children" to "households."  The former are a subset of the latter, but no valid conclusions can be drawn from that comparison as applied to same-sex and other non-traditional marriages.

The article reports that "just 69 percent of children live with married, heterosexual parents."  That leaves 31% of children (a category that does not directly correspond to "households") who live in another arrangement.  By following the link to the original data, we find 28% of children live in single-parent households.  That just leaves a very few percent of children who live in GLBT families, orphanages, or some other arrangement.

"Households," according to the Census, are the "basic residential unit" which "may or may not be synonymous with family."  That means that (according to your quote) more than three-quarters of households are not comprised of married heterosexual couple with children.

That make senses to me, as that could include unmarried heterosexual couples with children; married heterosexual couples whose children have grown and left the household; singles; childless heterosexual couples; all GLBT living arrangements with or without children; and other less common familial relationships.

I don't think your article supports your use of "family values" as a pejorative in the context of heterosexual marriage. Instead, I believe all children should be be in a loving family.  The traditional nuclear family has been a successful model. That does not, however, preclude other family models. Such models have existed throughout of all recorded history.

[Stephe]

The traditional nuclear family has been a successful model.

It's been a huge failure as well. I don't think the makeup of the people in the family has much to do with it being successful.

[Jamie D]

It's been a huge failure as well. I don't think the makeup of the people in the family has much to do with it being successful.

I am talking about the success of the traditional family over decades and centuries.  At one time, it was the backbone of American society.

Families, of all types, deserve to be supported and strengthened. I don't give much credence to the "it takes a village" mentality.  Social engineering over the past 50 years has eroded the family and increased all sorts of social ills.

[Stephe]

I am talking about the success of the traditional family over decades and centuries. 

I guess turning a blind eye to sexual abuse etc, the "traditional Family" is a success. True they do crank out children where a gay couple won't. I'm not sure what you mean by "social ills" and not sure I care to know.

[Jamie D]

I guess turning a blind eye to sexual abuse etc, the "traditional Family" is a success. True they do crank out children where a gay couple won't. I'm not sure what you mean by "social ills" and not sure I care to know.

Poverty, crime, hopelessness, ignorance, etc.

According to  Brookings [Institution]:

If you want to avoid poverty and join the middle class in the United States, you need to do three things:

* (1) Complete high school (at a minimum), (2) work full time, and (3) marry before you have children.
* If you do all three, your chances of being poor fall from 12 percent to 2 percent, and your chances of joining the middle class or above rise from 56 to 74 percent.
* Brookings defines middle class as having an income of at least $50,000 a year for a family of three.

Broken homes, especially single-parent homes, have a high incidence of poverty.  Over 40% of "children being raised by single mothers were below poverty.... Of America's married couple families, just 5.8% live in poverty." (Census Bureau)

[tekla]

The traditional nuclear family

The first thing you need to know about the traditional nuclear family is it's not traditional at all.  It goes back as far as that term would, so say, 1950s?  Yup, before that, the real traditional family, was an extended family - not nuclear family.

[Stephe]

Broken homes, especially single-parent homes, have a high incidence of poverty. 

And how do you think these broken homes started out?

[Hermione01]

I guess turning a blind eye to sexual abuse etc, the "traditional Family" is a success. True they do crank out children where a gay couple won't. I'm not sure what you mean by "social ills" and not sure I care to know.

True.

The traditional nuclear family

The first thing you need to know about the traditional nuclear family is it's not traditional at all. It goes back as far as that term would, so say, 1950s?  Yup, before that, the real traditional family, was an extended family - not nuclear family.

True.

[Jamie D]

The traditional nuclear family

The first thing you need to know about the traditional nuclear family is it's not traditional at all.  It goes back as far as that term would, so say, 1950s?  Yup, before that, the real traditional family, was an extended family - not nuclear family.

The terminology may be relatively new, since the early 1900's, but the concept is as old as America itself.  "Extended family" is a nebulous term in itself.

Let me take the example of James Madison.  His father built the original Montpelier manor house and occupied it with his immediate family.  When the elder Madison passed away, James Madison (Jr.) inherited the estate, as the eldest son, and proceeded to renovate the hoouse, so as to include an apartment wing for his widowed mother.

This example is somewhat different from the consanguineous model of multiple blood-related families composed of multiple generations, that is typically associated with an "extended family."  I am inclined not to narrow the definition of nuclear family to eliminate "granny" from the mix.

[Jamie D]

And how do you think these broken homes started out?

Some certainly started out as never having been "whole" in the first place.  Out of wedlock births, especially to under-educated teens, is recipe for disaster.

From a purely economic point of view, any couple in a stable relationship are more likely to provide a household that operates above the poverty line.

[ToriJo]

"Tradition" is bogus.  A better name for "traditional family" would be "fantasy family" as it never existed as people think it did.

Traditional involves things like:

• Oral sex being illegal in heterosexual marriage (still on the books in Virginia USA, even if unenforcable)
• Same-race marriage, never interracial!
• Women possessing no independent property rights once married
• Women and kids working in the household's business
• No concept of rape of a woman within a marriage (changed for the last state in the 80s - the idea was that she consented to everything the husband could possibly want when she chose to marry him, so she had given consent)

Lots of other things too that would surprise many of the people telling us that traditional marriage is good.

Love is good.  If that looks like a supposed traditional marriage to someone, that's fine.  But if it doesn't, love is still good.

[tekla]

I am inclined not to narrow the definition of nuclear family to eliminate "granny" from the mix.

Changing the goalposts because you don't like the outcome?  Words have meanings in the real world, and those two terms 'nuclear' (first used with the word 'family' in 1947 to describe the emerging post war social situations - so hardly as old as America) and 'extended' have definite meanings, and nuclear specifically refers to kicking granny to the curb, or the retirement home, or maybe granny is cruising America in a motor home.  Whatever she is doing, she's not doing it as part of the 'family'.  "Nuclear" refers to TWO (not more) generations in the same house, parents and their own kids, while "extended" includes other generations, or other relatives not of immediate blood line also living in the home.  So when JM built a granny/mother-in-law unit, that was exactly what an extended family would do (as common in that time).

In fact the nuclear family is one very prominent example of recent failed social engineering. 

Women and kids working in the household's business
And that's bad exactly how?  As soon as my kids were old enough they were working for us.  Either by going to the libarary with me and pulling research and makin' copies, or at the club my ex ran, where we asked them: "So, you want to be in show biz?"  "Yeah!"  "OK, here's a broom, sweep the stage.", they would sweep, take tickets, organize tickets, clean up, entertain the band, babysit for the bands baby, whatever it takes, whatever the party calls for.  That's how you learn to work.

[ToriJo]

As for women and kids working, the work they did prior to WWII was very different than the work they did after.

It's not about chores and helping on the farm.  They were spending every bit as much time working as the men before WWII, and after WWII neither generally worked in activities that directly earned money nearly as much as the men (the women's work did increase, but it wasn't paying work).

Part of it was the rural -> urban migration.  But part of it was also non-geographical.

I didn't attach a value judgement to it.

[Jamie D]

I am inclined not to narrow the definition of nuclear family to eliminate "granny" from the mix.

Changing the goalposts because you don't like the outcome?  Words have meanings in the real world, and those two terms 'nuclear' (first used with the word 'family' in 1947 to describe the emerging post war social situations - so hardly as old as America) and 'extended' have definite meanings, and nuclear specifically refers to kicking granny to the curb, or the retirement home, or maybe granny is cruising America in a motor home.  Whatever she is doing, she's not doing it as part of the 'family'.  "Nuclear" refers to TWO (not more) generations in the same house, parents and their own kids, while "extended" includes other generations, or other relatives not of immediate blood line also living in the home.  So when JM built a granny/mother-in-law unit, that was exactly what an extended family would do (as common in that time).

Not at all!

Strictly, a nuclear or elementary or conjugal family consists merely of parents and children, though it often includes one or two other relatives as well, for example, a widowed parent or unmarried sibling of one or other spouse. Parkin, R. (1997). Kinship: An introduction to basic concepts. Pg 28.

I suppose I'm not as strict as you are!

It is difficult to make the case that the "nuclear family" is a modern-day case of social engineering, when archeological evidence exists for the presence of nuclear families in prehistory.  By way of example:

Discovered in a tender embrace, the first known nuclear family

[Jamie D]

"Tradition" is bogus.  A better name for "traditional family" would be "fantasy family" as it never existed as people think it did.

Traditional involves things like:

• Oral sex being illegal in heterosexual marriage (still on the books in Virginia USA, even if unenforcable)
• Same-race marriage, never interracial!
• Women possessing no independent property rights once married
• Women and kids working in the household's business
• No concept of rape of a woman within a marriage (changed for the last state in the 80s - the idea was that she consented to everything the husband could possibly want when she chose to marry him, so she had given consent)

Lots of other things too that would surprise many of the people telling us that traditional marriage is good.

Love is good.  If that looks like a supposed traditional marriage to someone, that's fine.  But if it doesn't, love is still good.

Although I believe you are conflating the concept of a family model with all sorts of archaic marriage-related issues, the great irony is that the GLBT people outlined in the article cited in the original post are striving to create a nuclear-type family structure.

[Stephe]

Although I believe you are conflating the concept of a family model with all sorts of archaic marriage-related issues, the great irony is that the GLBT people outlined in the article cited in the original post are striving to create a nuclear-type family structure.

Yet these -created nuclear families- <> "family values" as defined by the religious right unless they are a heterosexual couple with their own natural children.. They create laws based on these "family values", when these types of families = less than 1/4 of the households.

And I never said less than 1/4 of the -families-. I quoted that the NATION is made up of less than 1/4 of these types of households. One reason I am not considered a family household is because I can't marry my boyfriend so we are both still single. Are any gay households considered families legally? I'm pretty sure at least some "single parents" are legally considered single due to GLBT status. In most states that's all they legally can be and the feds consider anything other than a heterosexual couple single.

  It's like they guy trying to push that bathroom bill in Tenn is using the term "protection of family values" as the reason. It's just a term used to beat people up, being used by a hostile and very vocal minority.

[Jamie D]

Yet these -created nuclear families- <> "family values" as defined by the religious right unless they are a heterosexual couple with their own natural children.. They create laws based on these "family values", when these types of families = less than 1/4 of the households.

And I never said less than 1/4 of the -families-. I quoted that the NATION is made up of less than 1/4 of these types of households. One reason I am not considered a family household is because I can't marry my boyfriend so we are both still single. Are any gay households considered families legally? I'm pretty sure at least some "single parents" are legally considered single due to GLBT status. In most states that's all they legally can be and the feds consider anything other than a heterosexual couple single.

  It's like they guy trying to push that bathroom bill in Tenn is using the term "protection of family values" as the reason. It's just a term used to beat people up, being used by a hostile and very vocal minority.

Stephe, as you are using Census Bureau data, let me provide the Census defintion of the terms:

Household
A household consists of all the people who occupy a housing unit. A house, an apartment or other group of rooms, or a single room, is regarded as a housing unit when it is occupied or intended for occupancy as separate living quarters; that is, when the occupants do not live and eat with any other persons in the structure and there is direct access from the outside or through a common hall.

A household includes the related family members and all the unrelated people, if any, such as lodgers, foster children, wards, or employees who share the housing unit. A person living alone in a housing unit, or a group of unrelated people sharing a housing unit such as partners or roomers, is also counted as a household. The count of households excludes group quarters. There are two major categories of households, "family" and "nonfamily".

Family
A family is a group of two people or more (one of whom is the householder) related by birth, marriage, or adoption and residing together; all such people (including related subfamily members) are considered as members of one family. Beginning with the 1980 Current Population Survey, unrelated subfamilies (referred to in the past as secondary families) are no longer included in the count of families, nor are the members of unrelated subfamilies included in the count of family members. The number of families is equal to the number of family households, however, the count of family members differs from the count of family household members because family household members include any non-relatives living in the household.

Family group
A family group is any two or more people (not necessarily including a householder) residing together, and related by birth, marriage, or adoption. A household may be composed of one such group, more than one, or none at all. The count of family groups includes family households, related subfamilies, and unrelated subfamilies.

Family household
A family household is a household maintained by a householder who is in a family (as defined above), and includes any unrelated people (unrelated subfamily members and/or secondary individuals) who may be residing there. The number of family households is equal to the number of families. The count of family household members differs from the count of family members, however, in that the family household members include all people living in the household, whereas family members include only the householder and his/her relatives.

As the Census Bureau is an organization that collects and manipulates data, I don't think they are too worried about "values."