Liberalism Destroys Families?

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Sandman

The family is king in those places? They are all former colonies still stuffering the effects of foreign rulers and the bureaucracies they set up to run their colonies, not intact extended families. Strange argument...

It's possible for a country to have corrupt bureaucrats and over-zealous family values. In fact, the two go together quite nicely.

[St Leo]

Originally posted by Kidicious
The problem with the traditional role of the family is that individuals had to depend on their family. That flys in the face of the idea of freedom.

Individualism
Free association

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Are doctors more likely to be liberal since their job is taking care of people?

I know many doctors who are quite conservative. Of course that's not very shocking considering where I live.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
He was wrong. The Ottoman Empire was destroyed by free trade.

Many Third World countries are being destroyed by free trade.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Kidicious
The problem with the traditional role of the family is that individuals had to depend on their family.

Not necessarily.

Originally posted by Kidicious
That flys in the face of the idea of freedom.

Feel free to elaborate on this.

[Dinner]

Republicans say for the good of families we must take away food stamps and starve children. Republicans claim that for good family values we should return to the days were 90% of seniors lived in poverty and to save families we should force women to stay with alcoholic or abusive husbands.

Am I the only one who believes Republicans aren't just wrong in this but that they are also liars & fools?

[Fake Boris]

No

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by MrFun
I'm not an expert, so I have a question.



Could one of the long-term increases in divorce since the 1950s be due to the possibility that less people wish to marry or remain married with the wrong person for reproductive purposes? Maybe the fundamental motivations in marrying has been slowly changing over the long term?



Where is an expert sociologist on Apolyton . . . . . .

Here's the deal -- and, actually, my PhD covers some of this terrain, so I'll pose as an expert:

Before the 1950s, there was a much lower rate of divorce in the US. That's because there was a much higher rate of family abandonment. Without divorce, men (and sometimes women, but far more often men) just cut and run. In a big country, in an age before computer databases, such an act was incredibly easy. Fun Americana fact: several of the "heroes" of the Alamo, including Jim Bowie and (I think) Davy Crockett, were in Texas to begin with because they were running away from the families they'd abandoned.

So arguably, divorce changed very little; it simply put a new legal label on activities that were already being practiced. (For cross-cultural comparison, you could look at teh Philippines today; it's one of only two countries in the world where divorce is forbidden, and yet its family structure is in shambles, with abandoned families being incredibly common).

Of course, keeping divorce illegal probably did keep some families together, but these were, by definition, families where the parents wanted a divorce. I don't know if anyone else here was raised in such a family, but I was (my parents could have divorced under US law, but not under Catholic Church doctrine, so they stayed together). Believe me, you do not want to raise your kids in such an environment.

In the end, reforms like no-fault divorce or social security only disrupt the status of families being kept together by legal dictate or economic necessity. Any family being kept together by actual affection is not threatened by such things, and any family not being kept together by actual affection isn't worth calling a family.

[Imran Siddiqui]

There is nothing as 'conservative' as a traditional family structure, as is strongly promoted in India, the Arab world, etc. This structure makes it very difficult for individualism because everyone is expected to work for the family and prop up the family. Setting off on your own and turning your back on the family is highly discouraged.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


Here's the deal -- and, actually, my PhD covers some of this terrain, so I'll pose as an expert:

Before the 1950s, there was a much lower rate of divorce in the US. That's because there was a much higher rate of family abandonment. Without divorce, men (and sometimes women, but far more often men) just cut and run. In a big country, in an age before computer databases, such an act was incredibly easy. Fun Americana fact: several of the "heroes" of the Alamo, including Jim Bowie and (I think) Davy Crockett, were in Texas to begin with because they were running away from the families they'd abandoned.

So arguably, divorce changed very little; it simply put a new legal label on activities that were already being practiced. (For cross-cultural comparison, you could look at teh Philippines today; it's one of only two countries in the world where divorce is forbidden, and yet its family structure is in shambles, with abandoned families being incredibly common).

Of course, keeping divorce illegal probably did keep some families together, but these were, by definition, families where the parents wanted a divorce. I don't know if anyone else here was raised in such a family, but I was (my parents could have divorced under US law, but not under Catholic Church doctrine, so they stayed together). Believe me, you do not want to raise your kids in such an environment.

In the end, reforms like no-fault divorce or social security only disrupt the status of families being kept together by legal dictate or economic necessity. Any family being kept together by actual affection is not threatened by such things, and any family not being kept together by actual affection isn't worth calling a family.

thanks for the reply

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
There is nothing as 'conservative' as a traditional family structure, as is strongly promoted in India, the Arab world, etc.

In undeveloped and underdeveloped countries families exist as an important support structure.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
This structure makes it very difficult for individualism because everyone is expected to work for the family and prop up the family.

Individualism is overrated.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Setting off on your own and turning your back on the family is highly discouraged.

Where would Donald Trump be without his father? Heck, where would Bill Gates be without his mother?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Unconceived?

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Re: Liberalism Destroys Families?

This really was a good troll, but I've gotta get 2 more cents in...

Originally posted by Berzerker
3) Women's "liberation" - Mommy wants a career, honey, so here's your nanny or child care expert. They'll watch you until school starts. Is this the origin of "Latchkey Kids?

Think about it. "Latchkey kids." Did anyone in the 1970s need a key for their latch? What the hell is a latchkey? Obviously, the term itself is an anachronism that long predates the 70s, when women's lib began.

Also, let's be clear: for the long duration of human history, in most cultures, poor women worked (in the fields) and wealthy (or even middle class) women raised their kids via servants. The housewife is an historical anomaly that liberalism (in the classic sense) created, rather than destroyed.

4) High taxation - gotta have it to pay for all this progress. But thats okay, we now have millions of mommies with careers to help pay for it all. Of course, the high taxation "coerced" millions of mothers into employment to pay the father's high taxes. Now they need child care too, parenting is increasingly shared with paid strangers.

Personal taxes have been steadily falling since the 1950s, when the top personal income tax bracket was over 80%. So I guess you're suggesting that the American family is in more traditional now than it was during the Eisenhower administration, right?

[molly bloom]

Re: outrage etc.

Originally posted by C0ckney


someone putting words into your mouth molly, well i'm certainly shocked.

That's cheap, tacky, entirely predictable and nothing that hasn't been said before.

It's still quite a relatively amusing riposte, for a heterosexual.

[Berzerker]

Pekka - on the first page, your last post explains your first post

St Leo - your argument is illogical, you cited stats from England during a time of brutal authoritarianism and compared them with modern times. Pointing to a worse situation does not absolve liberalism of its negative consequences. And the stat is irrelevant anyway, a single parent with a dependent child is not an out of wedlock birth. With all the warfare etc going on back then, proportionally more husbands would die younger leaving widows and dependent children. Here is a stat that is relevant:

Out-of-wedlock births have soared and are America's No. 1 social problem. In 1960, 5 percent of America's children were born illegitimately. Now the ratio is a third (32 percent). Scary, straight-line projections have shown it could go to 50 percent.

http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.18864/pub_detail.asp

Yeah woman, back to the 1950's with you! And while you're at it, bring me a beer!

You mean back when far fewer mommies had to leave the kiddies at day care to be in the workforce to help pay for all these wonderful liberal policies?