Reminds me of this quote from an essay by Roderic Day - “When we proudly assert that we are for the individual over the collective, we’re essentially saying that some people count as people, and some don’t. At the heart of liberalism lies dehumanization; we should not forget that slave ownership was one of the original “individual rights” that was so fiercely fought for by American revolutionaries.” https://redsails.org/masses-elites-and-rebels/
Honestly it scares me how many people are so nonchalant about having kids. My irl best friend is the same age as me (22) and has two kids. She had her son when we were 17, and her daughter when we were 19. I don’t think less of her for having kids (I love both of them to bits) but it just disturbs me how her whole reaction to the situation has basically been “ok.” No anxiety or happiness about it, just “ok.” I’ve realized that this is how most working class people view having kids. Like pregnancy accidentally happens and they just decide to roll with it. Of course anti-abortion b.s. and toxic ideas about relationships plays a role in this as well. I really find it disturbing how capitalism forces people to simply “roll with” a major life change like having kids. I also firmly believe that most parents are abusive in some way, and I hope that communism can/will change that.
Part of treating children like they’re not members of our society, and therefore only their parents should tolerate them, results in this.
The nuclear family is atrocious for children’s wellbeing and a parents ability to take good care of their kids. Two people are expected to work 40+ hours on top of raising a child (a 24/7 job) and the child doesn’t have safe people beyond their two parents.
I don’t know if abusive is the word I would use, but it’s not a healthy way to treat these people (both parents and children).
I disagree, the nuclear family isnt “atrocious for children”, capitalism is, your own comment says it. The problem is people having to work 40+hours, not the nuclear family. The nuclear family is/was the norm in all socialist states, its a responsability you take as a parent. To abolish the nuclear family would mean abolishing any responsability for having children. And note that im not saying the nuclear family can just be 1 woman and 1 man, i believe any possible arrangements are acceptable, including nuclear families of 3-4 parents or something like that. But there has to be a nuclear family, its a basic unit of the community, to dissolve the nuclear family is pure individualistic liberalism imo, to deny the inherent relationship between children and the adults who raise him.
Who will take care of a child if not their parents? The community? Its naive to expect such a thing, maybe in communism, but not in socialism. While its important to cultivate a common sense of community and care for others, its naive to expect random strangers to take care of your children full time. There is an inherent responsability in having children, and the nuclear family is based on that.
Nuclear family means one father one mother isolated from the community. The extended family is traditionally involved in the raising process of many cultures. The nuclear family is a new phenomenon bred by capitalism. It has brought no advantages to the parents nor the children, only more stress in a job that is extremely hard with such a small team.
A “nuclear family” IS two parents. Not three or four. You’re trying to redefine a family unit with a defined structure.
Where did I imply parents shouldn’t be the primary caretakers of children?
No.
Primarily the parents, the extended family when needed.
Under communism? I don’t know.
The nuclear family is the basis of all past and present AES states. It is completely false that the nuclear family is incompatible with community life, as these states have proved. I dont care whether “the official definition” of the nuclear family is just 2 parents, the same arrangement with 3 or 4 people is pretty much the same thing, so ill call it the same. I mean abolishing the nuclear family implies abolishing the closed parent child relation, meaning that there isnt anymore this unique special relation. Thus, the child will have the same relation with his parents and anyone else who lives with him, say aunts, in laws, grandparents, etc. Not that theres anything wrong with an extended family, but to expect such an arrangement to work in urban environments (where most people live nowadays worldwide) is naive. For that youd need huge countryside like homes, which is impossible with the current technology. You just cant build huge homes in small urban flats. Which is why under socialism the nuclear family should remain as it is now, the basic unit of the community. Under communism things could change, but were not quite there yet.
Well then you’re not engaging with what I’m talking about and choosing to put words in my mouth.
If I criticize one family structure and you choose to bring up another one claiming they’re the same, our conversation makes no sense.
Please use paragraphs.
Im engaging in what you are talking about. 99% of family units nowadays are 2 parents. All im saying is that the families of that 1% that are 3-4 or single parent should be considered nuclear too because they are pretty much identical, they function in the same way. But the argument still applies to the “traditional” nuclear family because it is the absolute majority of nuclear families.
I dont know what negative experience you have with nuclear families, but your experience isnt necessarily the norm. You seem to be moved by personal bias, not rational argument. The truth is that all AES states based themselves around the nuclear family, i believe with great success. This doesnt mean you cant discuss its validity, but to apply the negative results of nuclear families in the hypercapitalist neoliberal hellhole that is the USA, to all nuclear families worldwide, is not a fair comparison.
Please do not take offense with this message, its not my intention.
I believe the same thing with you. But assumptions don’t drive a fair discussion.
Unless you believe that we need to push a nuclear family over other traditional family structures and that an isolated nuclear family unit drives a healthy society, I don’t really care.
I will tell you to research abuse and violence statistics and ask yourself whether this new phenomenon proves superior to others. “Stranger danger” hasn’t done any favours to children.
I’m not here to take your kids, I just believe they would benefit from more safe people than one or two parents. And parents would benefit from knowing that they don’t have to be alone raising their kids.
Maybe the US is worse on this than Europe, but i have never experienced what you are describing. I come from a “traditional” nuclear family, 1 man and 1 woman, but i still have extensive and good relations with my extended family, despite me not seeing them often (they live in Italy, i live in Spain). I know that if something happened to my parents, my aunts, uncles and cousins would be there for me, despite them living on the other side of the Mediterranean Sea. I have seen similar things with my acquaintances, frankly i have seen much more disfunctionality with divorced couples, not that im against divorce or single parents, but its just what ive seen in life.
I don’t think the phenomenon you’re describing is abuse, but it definitely helps to facilitate it.
That’s what I believe, calling most parents “abusive” would be inaccurate and it doesn’t help fix or address the problems I see with this family structure