If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Atlantic)   Slow Death: Traditional families are dying in America. We're going down anyway, might as well be all the way down   (theatlantic.com) divider line 187
    More: Sad, families, cultural conservative  
•       •       •

9657 clicks; posted to Main » on 30 Nov 2013 at 12:37 AM (20 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



187 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-11-29 11:44:25 PM
I'd say grumpycatgood.jpg, but I have nothing against "traditional families."

So instead, I'll go with omgwhothehellcares.jpg
 
2013-11-29 11:57:57 PM
FTFA:  Education and income go hand-in-hand, and so it will come as no surprise that richer individuals are more likely to married

I think it's safe to say the author of TFA didn't get a BA in English......
 
2013-11-30 12:01:00 AM

xanadian: FTFA:  Education and income go hand-in-hand, and so it will come as no surprise that richer individuals are more likely to married

I think it's safe to say the author of TFA didn't get a BA in English......


Grammar aside, why are more educated people more likely to be married? Or are they just talking about people with kids? Because I'm educated good and I ain't got no married but no kids either. Don't see the correlation,
 
2013-11-30 12:37:10 AM
Societies evolve

Let it happen and stop being scared of it
 
2013-11-30 12:38:11 AM
Subby, going down is no way to make a traditional family.
 
2013-11-30 12:41:02 AM
That reminds me of the time I walked in on my two dads making love....
 
2013-11-30 12:41:13 AM
You don't have to be a cultural conservative to acknowledge that the disintegration of the traditional family structure at the bottom of our economic ladder means that too many kids have fallen behind before they set foot in school.

No, but you do have to confuse correlation with causation to some extent.
 
2013-11-30 12:42:01 AM
Who the hell cares.jpg

Seriously what did you think was gonna happen.
 
2013-11-30 12:42:32 AM
How the hell can you have a traditional family if both parents have to work two or more jobs just to pay the bills?
 
2013-11-30 12:43:35 AM
Just don't tell my other family about it...
 
2013-11-30 12:45:20 AM
This is bad news......for the Wedding Industry.
 
2013-11-30 12:46:31 AM
One cannot have a great civilization without ashes to rise from.
 
2013-11-30 12:46:40 AM
I suspect that some people's notion of "traditional" doesn't go back very far at all.
 
2013-11-30 12:49:26 AM
From Coelecanth:
"How the hell can you have a traditional family if both parents have to work two or more jobs just to pay the bills?"

Oh so racist. ;)

Heyyyyyyyy, Mon!
 
2013-11-30 12:50:01 AM
Headline should read, "Fewer people interested in marriage."

But then it would be obvious to anyone that this isn't news, it's just fark fodder.
 
2013-11-30 12:50:11 AM
How long was the "traditional" family around? Maybe 75 years?
 
2013-11-30 12:51:55 AM
I'd be more worried if  actualfamilies were  actuallydying.
 
2013-11-30 12:54:30 AM
Women who are married to other guys interest me.
They like to fark.
 
2013-11-30 12:57:20 AM

xanadian: FTFA:  Education and income go hand-in-hand, and so it will come as no surprise that richer individuals are more likely to married

I think it's safe to say the author of TFA didn't get a BA in English......


If not for his horse he wouldn't've spent that year in collage
 
2013-11-30 01:01:41 AM
I don't know that the data exactly shows a slow death of the traditional family.  If anything it shows the overwhelming success of traditional families, but I guess that doesn't make for eye grabbing headlines.
 
2013-11-30 01:02:34 AM
Traditional family:
1954 - stay with the guy abusing you and your kids
1985 - get a divorce
 
2013-11-30 01:02:40 AM

whatshisname: How long was the "traditional" family around? Maybe 75 years?


Yep. Before 1940, people didn't get married and raise children in a mother/father household.
 
2013-11-30 01:03:21 AM

Brainsick: xanadian: FTFA:  Education and income go hand-in-hand, and so it will come as no surprise that richer individuals are more likely to married

I think it's safe to say the author of TFA didn't get a BA in English......

If not for his horse he wouldn't've spent that year in collage


www.seatcoverman.com

A horse collage, you say?
 
2013-11-30 01:03:35 AM

Brainsick: xanadian: FTFA:  Education and income go hand-in-hand, and so it will come as no surprise that richer individuals are more likely to married

I think it's safe to say the author of TFA didn't get a BA in English......

If not for his horse he wouldn't've spent that year in collage


your my gyro
 
Juc
2013-11-30 01:04:00 AM
I think if you're going to have kids, any multi-adult arrangement is going to make life wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyy easier for the parent(s) as well as the kid, traditional or not.
Nothing really wrong with a single-parent, but I do think we should help those folks out as much as possible. Helping out young folks pays off for society in the long run.
 
2013-11-30 01:04:20 AM
Headline: Traditional families dying!!!!! ZOMG RUN FOR THE HILLS BEFORE THE CANNIBALS GET YA!!!!!

Actual data (in the chart): The vast, vast majority of family units with children have not just two parents present, but two  married parents present, by an overwhelming margin.  Well, a mostly-overwhelming margin in the case of poor people, but still pretty overwhelming.
 
2013-11-30 01:04:57 AM

walktoanarcade: Heyyyyyyyy, Mon!


socialindc.com
 
2013-11-30 01:05:08 AM
I'm (of course) pro-marriage, but that said, this guy sounds like an educated troll.*

Statements like:
"no surprise that richer individuals are more likely to married"
And
"too many kids have fallen behind before they set foot in school",
sound really like the writer is implying that only poor people do this because they can't do it better and their kids are raised worse than other kids.

That said, some states, if I am not mistaken, have instituted laws that equate live-in girlfriends as wives, especially when there are kids involved.

Here's the kicker, who's to say that an infertile woman shouldn't get benefits? One lawsuit later, and the law gets expanded to include child-less couples.
The live-in period is too short? One lawsuit later comparing how short marriages can be, and live-in girlfriends can sue you for even shorter periods for "divorce settlements".
The pinnacle of this would be when that college girlfriend of yours moves in for a couple of days, you fight all the time because you are both young and stupid, and you break up in the first week.
THEN she sues you for 'divorce settlements'.

I'm just extrapolating here.

*didnt we have a troll meme pic that had the troll head on a graduate? It would be fitting for this writer.

/what do I know. Whoozy.
//feel like my grammar is falling apart
///tilted slashies
 
2013-11-30 01:06:16 AM

Dreamless: I suspect that some people's notion of "traditional" doesn't go back very far at all.


For most people, "traditional" means "mostly similar to the fantasy world I invented to explain to myself how the world works when I was between the ages of eight and twelve."

But for some people, "traditional" means "mostly similar to the fantasy world invented by a charlatan around 100 years ago."

"Orthodox" means almost exactly the same thing.
 
2013-11-30 01:07:11 AM

Begoggle: Traditional family:
1954 - stay with the guy abusing you and your kids
1985 - get a divorce


The married couples in charge of the kids aren't necessarily both the parents of all the children, by the way.  Second spouses, etc count as having married parents in charge of things.

Most people that get divorced do actually re-marry, actually in the 1950s the real numbers were probably bigger in what we'd now call single-parent because you usually "separated" (leaving only one parent with the kid) without actually filing for divorce.
 
2013-11-30 01:15:54 AM
Am I the only one who read that article and saw it as more of an indictment of income inequality than anything else?
 
2013-11-30 01:16:22 AM

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: whatshisname: How long was the "traditional" family around? Maybe 75 years?

Yep. Before 1940, people didn't get married and raise children in a mother/father household.

You mean to tell me history started before I was born.

 
2013-11-30 01:16:31 AM

Resident Muslim: Here's the kicker, who's to say that an infertile woman shouldn't get benefits?


Um... no one.  Infertile people are welcome to adopt.

In fact, that'd be nice, we have a hard time finding even foster homes for most kids that need adoption.
 
2013-11-30 01:18:58 AM

cman: Societies evolve

Let it happen and stop being scared of it


I'd be interested to hear the case for how single-parent households represent societal evolution.

/but...I sort of suspect there isn't one.
 
2013-11-30 01:21:36 AM
Getting married to someone and plopping out a bunch of crotchfruit used to be a necessity for survival in America, first in ye olde days of an agrarian economy where you needed the extra backs to tend livestock and deal with the fields, and then later in the industrialized economy where old people, instead of dying and getting out of the way, lingered on and leeched off the homes that their children built. We've since progressed onto this hellish service-based economy, where children and a spouse are a financial burden when you're young, and won't have the wherewithal to support you when you're old. So it makes more sense, financially, to stay single your whole life, hooking up as needed, and keep developing a lucrative management career so you can retire on a fat wad of cash that would have otherwise been spent raising unnecessary kids.

/bitter about having neither a wife nor any little mini-me monsters to raise
 
2013-11-30 01:23:17 AM

Bumblefark: cman: Societies evolve

Let it happen and stop being scared of it

I'd be interested to hear the case for how single-parent households represent societal evolution.

/but...I sort of suspect there isn't one.


Way lower divorce rates
 
2013-11-30 01:25:15 AM
The real question is why are people still having so many children in an overpopulated world?
Animal instinct has won out over rational thinking.
 
2013-11-30 01:25:34 AM

SpdrJay: That reminds me of the time I walked in on my two dads making love....


That was indeed an awkward episode.
 
2013-11-30 01:25:52 AM

Bumblefark: cman: Societies evolve

Let it happen and stop being scared of it

I'd be interested to hear the case for how single-parent households represent societal evolution.

/but...I sort of suspect there isn't one.


Just because we can't see one doesn't mean that there are none.
 
2013-11-30 01:26:06 AM

Bumblefark: I'd be interested to hear the case for how single-parent households represent societal evolution.


I'll give it a shot.

In ancient societies, you needed a village to raise kids.  Think tribes of the Amazon and whatnot.  Two parents are going to have one hell of hard time gathering and hunting and avoiding predators to support kids.  Those three things work much better in small groups of adults.  And modern developments like one farmer feeding thousands around the world have made it possible to support dependents with fewer and fewer people.
 
2013-11-30 01:28:26 AM
Gay marriage laws have

Stopped reading there.
 
2013-11-30 01:34:08 AM

Jim_Callahan: Begoggle: Traditional family:
1954 - stay with the guy abusing you and your kids
1985 - get a divorce

The married couples in charge of the kids aren't necessarily both the parents of all the children, by the way.  Second spouses, etc count as having married parents in charge of things.

Most people that get divorced do actually re-marry, actually in the 1950s the real numbers were probably bigger in what we'd now call single-parent because you usually "separated" (leaving only one parent with the kid) without actually filing for divorce.


My mom's mom was married four times. It's led some confusion when she's talking about that side of the family. Mom was born in 56. Grandma was... tenacious.

/All military men
//"Your grandpa said.." "Which one?"
 
2013-11-30 01:36:32 AM

Bumblefark: I'd be interested to hear the case for how single-parent households represent societal evolution.


I'd be interested to hear what you imagine evolution is.
 
2013-11-30 01:37:06 AM
Look at the bright side, Subby.

After there is a pull back of government services -- with a national debt at $1.2 million per taxpayer, it IS gonna happen -- people are going to have to re-form the family to survive, to take care of each other.

I'm optimistic for myself but not for this country. I'm not sure America is the best place for my descendants. I'll advise any young (or old) farker: make yourself globally mobile, stay healthy and spend more time learning than entertaining.
 
2013-11-30 01:39:31 AM

walktoanarcade: From Coelecanth:
"How the hell can you have a traditional family if both parents have to work two or more jobs just to pay the bills?"

Oh so racist. ;)

Heyyyyyyyy, Mon!


Having a vagina is a race?
 
2013-11-30 01:39:34 AM
Good riddance.
 
2013-11-30 01:41:39 AM
And who is leading the way?  The south, the bastion of conservative values and steadfast belief in traditional families.

Can't find it now but a couple years ago there was a study that showed that the south had a larger percentage of non-traditional families than any other part of the US.
 
2013-11-30 01:45:21 AM

The Larch: Bumblefark: I'd be interested to hear the case for how single-parent households represent societal evolution.

I'd be interested to hear what you imagine evolution is.


Tell you what -- you tell me what you think it is, and I'll explain to you why you're wrong.
 
2013-11-30 01:45:52 AM

Begoggle: Traditional family:
1954 - stay with the guy abusing you and your kids
1985 - get a divorce


1954 - Get to stay at home, run your household, take care of your children and become active in running your community because your husband makes a "family wage" (That is, his household expenses,--which include the money to support a wife in her daily tasks PLUS the mortgage on a house--are entirely covered by his salary.) Abuse and cruelty were considered legitimate reasons for granting a divorce.

1985 - You and your husband work your asses off because it takes both of your incomes to afford a house. Women are pretty much doing the same jobs they did back in 1954 (retail clerk, nurse, secretary, teacher, child care) and those who would have been stay at home moms now find a huge chunk of their outside-the-home work income (what was formerly their portion of Dad's "family wage") now going to their employers and to taxes. Frustrated women are free to pull the plug on their marriage, knowing that they will be granted custody of the kids and the house 84 percent of the time.

Men are finding themselves being just as disposable as they were back in 1954, only now they don't have nearly as much to compensate them for their sacrifices as they did before. The big salaries, respect, and head of household status which they used to receive are now all but gone. No wonder so many men are seeing modern marriage as the raw deal that it is and avoiding it like the plague. You'd be crazy to risk half your stuff in a contract that could be effectively broken by either party on a whim.
 
2013-11-30 01:46:21 AM

Paelian: Am I the only one who read that article and saw it as more of an indictment of income inequality than anything else?


Whoa! Slow down there, Sparky! You can't talk about the actual problem out in the open like that. You'll be accused of Class warfare!
 
Displayed 50 of 187 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report