Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(Daily Mail)   Good news for you anti-family heathens, the modern American family continues to die   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line 93
    More: Obvious, Americans, Ed O'Neill, Michael Sams, extended family, divorce rates  
•       •       •

5624 clicks; posted to Main » on 12 May 2014 at 2:50 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



93 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-05-11 10:31:04 PM  
What the hell does that survey question even mean?
 
2014-05-11 11:03:49 PM  
I guess it's a good thing that more and more folks are getting their right to marry to shore up the numbers of families then. Marriage equality: good for families, good for America...

Seriously, though: women working were supposed to destroy families. Children going to college instead of working their family businesses without higher education was supposed to gut our economy and families. Dark folks getting equal protection was supposed to destroy America. Immigrants coming in, with their strange customs and strong familial values was going to gut the social fabric of the nation.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Marriage equality has led to stronger community ties for a fair chunk of the population--and investment into homes, into businesses, and oddly enough, cater waiters and banquet hall rentals. The family is doing just fine. What is coming into focus is that when both folks are working--and they have to in order to keep food on the table and rent or mortgages paid--is that there aren't stay at home parents, but a sharing of responsibilities. Which, oddly enough, is moving more and more up the chain into the middle class, as opposed to being just a feature for the poors. Families are just fine, but economic pressures are taking their toll. If you want stronger families, and you want more folks going to church or the stuff of campfire tales of "how America used to be" then we need to look at the economic disparity that we are seeing, cash flight as larger and larger banks and chains siphon cash OUT of communities, and leave behind only minimal job numbers, and increase local investment and entrepreneurship. Which means, yes, more competition, more trading of cash back and forth between local businesses, and less for the chains and larger conglomerates who have taken to sucking cash well and away from where it's needed.

Maybe that's a hard concept for folks. You want "stronger" families, then we need decent health care so that folks can care for their elderly, as opposed to shipping them off to homes and hospitals and care facilities. We need better economic safeguards, and we need better investment strategies than "buy stocks and hope." We need to maybe stop the recockulous "War on Drugs" that ships off folks to prison at a frightening rate, and leaving families without half a parental unit, or worse, both parents in different prisons, and relying on a foster system, or grandparents or other relatives to care for kids. Stronger economic incentives, stronger protections, means that families are less stressed, have more time with one another, and with stronger ties to a community.

But you bring these long term strategies up, it's not "Conservative" enough, instead we have to look at breaking up families, forcing them to work even harder to keep jobs that simply don't pay, don't allow for time to actually invest time and energy into their community or their own businesses. You want that idyllic America that everyone yearns for? The one that never really existed? Then we need to put down the corporate hype, and start looking at the long term economic health of the country, not just the health of organizations and businesses that want to ship as many jobs elsewhere as possible, concentrate cash well and away from our communities, and rebuild main street NOT with an influx of massive building projects, but localized growth that can be sustained, and will grow--as opposed to creating building booms that don't actually have much for long term prospects...
 
2014-05-11 11:25:07 PM  

Aarontology: What the hell does that survey question even mean?


I wondered that as well. Define "weaker".
 
2014-05-11 11:40:32 PM  

fusillade762: Aarontology: What the hell does that survey question even mean?

I wondered that as well. Define "weaker".


The only thing I can think of is divorce rate.
 
2014-05-11 11:46:23 PM  

Aarontology: fusillade762: Aarontology: What the hell does that survey question even mean?

I wondered that as well. Define "weaker".

The only thing I can think of is divorce rate.


No, it's just the usual subjective bullsh*t poll to push/pull folks into camps, to point to use as "numbers" to "show" how terrible things are, and have those numbers to prove their point. It's essentially polling to have something to cite later on. They say 65% of all statistics are made up right there on the spot...
 
2014-05-11 11:53:41 PM  
mediastudiesisshit.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-05-11 11:54:25 PM  

hubiestubert: Aarontology: fusillade762: Aarontology: What the hell does that survey question even mean?

I wondered that as well. Define "weaker".

The only thing I can think of is divorce rate.

No, it's just the usual subjective bullsh*t poll to push/pull folks into camps, to point to use as "numbers" to "show" how terrible things are, and have those numbers to prove their point. It's essentially polling to have something to cite later on. They say 65% of all statistics are made up right there on the spot...


That's what I assumed. The divorce thing is the only "real" evidence I could think people were using for their answer.
 
2014-05-12 01:00:26 AM  
I think the idea of the American Nuclear Family has outlived its usefulness. It's time to think about family in a different way -- larger scale -- "villages."

"Family-values" type people hate that idea, too, because they don't get to exercise their patriarchal, abusive bullshiat.
img.fark.net
 
2014-05-12 01:13:00 AM  
Ah, yes, more "things were better in my day" BS

I wonder if the respondents realize that if things are worse off now than when they were kids it means that they are the ones who dropped the ball.

Stop whining and spend more time with your kids, asshats.
 
2014-05-12 01:13:14 AM  
Maybe we should stop polling people on what they believe and poll them on whether they know what is it is not true instead.
 
2014-05-12 01:13:51 AM  
Is or is not true*
 
2014-05-12 02:13:37 AM  
I dont care how many protons or neutrons are in the nuclear family, but I do think it's a good practice to have one or the other around full time to care for the electrons.

/did that metaphor work?
 
2014-05-12 02:48:25 AM  
Oddly enough, this same poll showed a rapid decline in unicorn births too.
 
2014-05-12 03:03:50 AM  
Clans and tribes aren't doing so hot in America these days either. Times change.
 
2014-05-12 03:06:32 AM  
Citation needed.jpg

Does this mean we are closer to Huxley's Brave New World where I can send my rugrat to the neighbors?
 
2014-05-12 03:07:58 AM  
Dystopian futures always make for the best entertainment. So we'll have that going for us, which will be nice,

And why does dystopian register as a misspell?
 
2014-05-12 03:08:01 AM  
Seventy-six per cent of Republicans answered that the modern family was weaker compared to 61 per cent of Democrats and Independents.

I love how they lumped democrats and independents together.
 
2014-05-12 03:09:18 AM  
Dumbest poll since whatever the hell last one CNN did.
 
2014-05-12 03:18:51 AM  
If the Leave it to Beaver family that never actually existed is now the "modern family," what exactly are the people who call for a return of the "traditional family" trying to get back?  Scary thought.
 
2014-05-12 03:28:26 AM  
How can I start my family if I can't even legally marry?
 
2014-05-12 03:35:30 AM  

hubiestubert: I guess it's a good thing that more and more folks are getting their right to marry to shore up the numbers of families then. Marriage equality: good for families, good for America...

Seriously, though: women working were supposed to destroy families. Children going to college instead of working their family businesses without higher education was supposed to gut our economy and families. Dark folks getting equal protection was supposed to destroy America. Immigrants coming in, with their strange customs and strong familial values was going to gut the social fabric of the nation.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Marriage equality has led to stronger community ties for a fair chunk of the population--and investment into homes, into businesses, and oddly enough, cater waiters and banquet hall rentals. The family is doing just fine. What is coming into focus is that when both folks are working--and they have to in order to keep food on the table and rent or mortgages paid--is that there aren't stay at home parents, but a sharing of responsibilities. Which, oddly enough, is moving more and more up the chain into the middle class, as opposed to being just a feature for the poors. Families are just fine, but economic pressures are taking their toll. If you want stronger families, and you want more folks going to church or the stuff of campfire tales of "how America used to be" then we need to look at the economic disparity that we are seeing, cash flight as larger and larger banks and chains siphon cash OUT of communities, and leave behind only minimal job numbers, and increase local investment and entrepreneurship. Which means, yes, more competition, more trading of cash back and forth between local businesses, and less for the chains and larger conglomerates who have taken to sucking cash well and away from where it's needed.

Maybe that's a hard concept for folks. You want "stronger" families, then we need decent health care so that folks can care for their elderly, as opposed to shipping them off to homes and hospitals and care facilities. We need better economic safeguards, and we need better investment strategies than "buy stocks and hope." We need to maybe stop the recockulous "War on Drugs" that ships off folks to prison at a frightening rate, and leaving families without half a parental unit, or worse, both parents in different prisons, and relying on a foster system, or grandparents or other relatives to care for kids. Stronger economic incentives, stronger protections, means that families are less stressed, have more time with one another, and with stronger ties to a community.

But you bring these long term strategies up, it's not "Conservative" enough, instead we have to look at breaking up families, forcing them to work even harder to keep jobs that simply don't pay, don't allow for time to actually invest time and energy into their community or their own businesses. You want that idyllic America that everyone yearns for? The one that never really existed? Then we need to put down the corporate hype, and start looking at the long term economic health of the country, not just the health of organizations and businesses that want to ship as many jobs elsewhere as possible, concentrate cash well and away from our communities, and rebuild main street NOT with an influx of massive building projects, but localized growth that can be sustained, and will grow--as opposed to creating building booms that don't actually have much for long term prospects...


This argument makes a lot of sense and therefore will never seriously see the light of day in any similar discussion.

/fear mongering of "OTHERS" and thinking of the childrens ftw!
 
2014-05-12 03:35:45 AM  
Ok..it just hit me. Claire Huxtable was originally married to a white guy. They had two kids, got a divorce, and then she remarried and started a new family.
 
2014-05-12 03:48:13 AM  
So this was just a "feel" kinda thing.  Like republicans and science kinda feel.

In my part of the world families are strong.  The women here are cranking out children.
 
2014-05-12 03:52:30 AM  
Good. This isn't 1953, and we don't all need to eat at the table together.
 
2014-05-12 03:56:08 AM  
The gay revolution is about to hit you now.
 
2014-05-12 04:07:11 AM  

Aarontology: fusillade762: Aarontology: What the hell does that survey question even mean?

I wondered that as well. Define "weaker".

The only thing I can think of is divorce rate.


Being a child of the 80s and 90s, divorce rates are actually DOWN from since I was a kid.

Reminds me of an idle tangent I was on earlier today.  I didn't get many comics as a kid, but of the ones I did, mostly in the 90s, Spider-man's marriage to Mary Jane was always my rock of stability, the one comic book relationship that didn't end in cheating, betrayal, divorce, or a woman being stuffed in a refrigerator.
Then they decided to end it so that Peter Parker could be a constantly down-on-his-luck swinging bachelor again like in someone else' "good old days."

*shrug*
 
v15
2014-05-12 04:13:35 AM  

Frederick: I dont care how many protons or neutrons are in the nuclear family, but I do think it's a good practice to have one or the other around full time to care for the electrons.

/did that metaphor work?


It works for me because when you split the atom you get a nuclear disaster.
 
2014-05-12 04:25:05 AM  
i.imgur.com

Looks like there is no problem with the American family(TM)
 
2014-05-12 04:28:17 AM  

TheBigJerk: Then they decided to end it so that Peter Parker could be a constantly down-on-his-luck swinging bachelor again like in someone else' "good old days."


Take heart; in a decade or two there will be writers and artists working for Marvel who are nostalgic for the married Spider-Man of their childhood and will reverse it, probably to the wails of the current fans.
 
2014-05-12 04:31:12 AM  

powhound: [i.imgur.com image 624x407]

Looks like there is no problem with the American family(TM)


are you kidding??? Look at how much taxes they have to pay!!!!
 
2014-05-12 04:43:11 AM  
That reminds me of the time I walked in on my two dads making love....
 
2014-05-12 04:50:18 AM  

Lionel Mandrake: Ah, yes, more "things were better in my day" BS

I wonder if the respondents realize that if things are worse off now than when they were kids it means that they are the ones who dropped the ball.

Stop whining and spend more time with your kids, asshats.


[bearsrepeating.gif]

And most people think parenting is congruous with glamour. Oh the damage that has done.
 
2014-05-12 05:07:17 AM  

robohobo: Dystopian futures always make for the best entertainment. So we'll have that going for us, which will be nice,

And why does dystopian register as a misspell?


You know why.  Doubleplus ungood.  Report for reeducation.
 
2014-05-12 05:09:29 AM  

log_jammin: powhound: [i.imgur.com image 624x407]

Looks like there is no problem with the American family(TM)

are you kidding??? Look at how much taxes they have to pay!!!!


crap! 0bummer's killin' them! That's it, I'm divorcing my cat.
 
2014-05-12 05:22:06 AM  
I've had a lot of bad investments over the years, but the rate of return on my $70 vasectomy co-pay has been darn near infinity%.

I learned all I needed to know about the sanctity of marriage when my parents nastily divorced when I was 8.
 
2014-05-12 05:35:56 AM  

fredbox: I learned all I needed to know about the sanctity of marriage when my parents nastily divorced when I was 8.


Thats rough.  Been there.  Apparently bad marriages are the fault of the gay agenda -I'm told by ultra-conservatives (even though my parents divorced over 35 years ago).

I vowed to do a better job with my marriage than did my parents.  It's a lot of difficult work but we're approaching 24 years.  Without a realistic example of what it takes to make a long term marriage successful; I dont know how the next generation is supposed to figure it out.....?
 
2014-05-12 05:42:30 AM  

Smoking GNU: hubiestubert: I guess it's a good thing that more and more folks are getting their right to marry to shore up the numbers of families then. Marriage equality: good for families, good for America...

Seriously, though: women working were supposed to destroy families. Children going to college instead of working their family businesses without higher education was supposed to gut our economy and families. Dark folks getting equal protection was supposed to destroy America. Immigrants coming in, with their strange customs and strong familial values was going to gut the social fabric of the nation.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Marriage equality has led to stronger community ties for a fair chunk of the population--and investment into homes, into businesses, and oddly enough, cater waiters and banquet hall rentals. The family is doing just fine. What is coming into focus is that when both folks are working--and they have to in order to keep food on the table and rent or mortgages paid--is that there aren't stay at home parents, but a sharing of responsibilities. Which, oddly enough, is moving more and more up the chain into the middle class, as opposed to being just a feature for the poors. Families are just fine, but economic pressures are taking their toll. If you want stronger families, and you want more folks going to church or the stuff of campfire tales of "how America used to be" then we need to look at the economic disparity that we are seeing, cash flight as larger and larger banks and chains siphon cash OUT of communities, and leave behind only minimal job numbers, and increase local investment and entrepreneurship. Which means, yes, more competition, more trading of cash back and forth between local businesses, and less for the chains and larger conglomerates who have taken to sucking cash well and away from where it's needed.

Maybe that's a hard concept for folks. You want "stronger" families, then we need decent health care so that ...


came here to say

THIS

doesnt gay marriage fit closely with all the family value NUTS!!!
seriously
 
2014-05-12 06:00:33 AM  

Aarontology: fusillade762: Aarontology: What the hell does that survey question even mean?

I wondered that as well. Define "weaker".

The only thing I can think of is divorce rate.


People have fewer kids and everyone is mobile, no one stays where they were born. Basically all my aunts and uncles dispersed over the country, and I don't know my cousins.
 
2014-05-12 06:09:44 AM  

ghare: People have fewer kids and everyone is mobile, no one stays where they were born. Basically all my aunts and uncles dispersed over the country, and I don't know my cousins.


We had all the local family together for Mother's Day yesterday..dinner for 8.  I was the only one under the age of 60, with my mother the 2nd youngest.
 
2014-05-12 06:15:18 AM  

ghare: People have fewer kids and everyone is mobile, no one stays where they were born. Basically all my aunts and uncles dispersed over the country, and I don't know my cousins.


That's not weakness. They're colonizing.
 
2014-05-12 06:18:40 AM  

Aarontology: What the hell does that survey question even mean?


Shh, you. Any questions that imply the polling emperors are strutting about all nekkid and stuff will not be tolerated. They are serious social scientists and this was a serious social question.
 
2014-05-12 06:50:07 AM  

namatad: doesnt gay marriage fit closely with all the family value NUTS!!!


Your characterization of those who support family values as NUTS is extremely offensive but put that aside.  Marriage, gay or straight, in and of itself does nothing for family values.  Family values are supported when the parents are together and established before they have kids and then stay together and raise the kids.  Situations where the parents are both the natural parents tend to be very slightly more successful.  Parents who have children and then divorce are putting children at economic risk because what is the same income pool needs to support two homes.  The highest rate of parental child abuse tends to come from step-parents.   But parents who never marry have only a single digit chance of NOT raising their children in poverty.

It would make sense to me, then, that a compassionate society would do everything it can to promote and support what we know works and try to avoid what doesn't work while steering those on a bad path to a better path.

All of that has a lot less to do with whether the parents are gay or straight and a lot more to do with the parents' commitment to each other and to the children.  That commitment is frequently at odds with one's narrow self-interest.  Therein lies the rub.  It is my opinion that today's society is becoming increasingly narcissistic.  It is frequently narcissism and selfishness that leads to divorce.  Narcissism is also at odds with any family values.

Starting with "The Greatest Generation" we have tended to raise children that are more narcissistic.  Through the generations, one can always find plenty of examples of 'not narcissists' but, in my opinion, the trend is growing.  The "everybody gets a trophy" mentality will not serve the upcoming generations well.

In my opinion, the narcissistic lack of commitment has a far more deleterious effect on families than race, economic standing, or sexual orientation.  That selfishness comes in all colors, religions, occupations, and social strata.
 
2014-05-12 06:56:04 AM  

hubiestubert: I guess it's a good thing that more and more folks are getting their right to marry to shore up the numbers of families then. Marriage equality: good for families, good for America...

...

Maybe that's a hard concept for folks. You want "stronger" families, then we need decent health care so that folks can car ...


But, that would cause the masses to unite. And united, they are a threat.

In the Bible, God jumbled the languages for a reason. He perceived humanity as a threat.
 
2014-05-12 06:59:06 AM  

Mr. Right: In my opinion, the narcissistic lack of commitment has a far more deleterious effect on families than race, economic standing, or sexual orientation.  That selfishness comes in all colors, religions, occupations, and social strata.


So true. I have a family member who is white, middle-class, and has essentially abandoned her children in favor of a third marriage. She does go to church every Sunday and loves Bill O'Reilly so there is that I guess.
 
2014-05-12 06:59:38 AM  

Mr. Right: In my opinion, the narcissistic lack of commitment has a far more deleterious effect on families than race, economic standing, or sexual orientation. That selfishness comes in all colors, religions, occupations, and social strata.


I dont often agree with you (I've been paying attention) but I agree with this.
 
2014-05-12 07:00:31 AM  

Aarontology: What the hell does that survey question even mean?


Nothing, of course.
 
2014-05-12 07:14:15 AM  

Mr. Right: It is frequently narcissism and selfishness that leads to divorce.  Narcissism is also at odds with any family values.


Yeah, the good old days when you married someone right out of high school whose locker happened to be next to yours and you stayed together for the sake of the kids, that always worked out.
 
2014-05-12 07:19:40 AM  

Mr. Right: It is frequently narcissism and selfishness that leads to divorce.  Narcissism is also at odds with any family values.


Good thing our political system doesn't attract and celebrate narcissists, then. Whew!
 
2014-05-12 07:26:36 AM  

ecmoRandomNumbers: I think the idea of the American Nuclear Family has outlived its usefulness.


Indeed! Isn't it time for Wind Families or Solar Families or Geothermal Families?
 
2014-05-12 07:31:12 AM  

Gulper Eel: Mr. Right: It is frequently narcissism and selfishness that leads to divorce.  Narcissism is also at odds with any family values.

Good thing our political system doesn't attract and celebrate narcissists, then. Whew!


Politicians, business leaders, religious leaders - they are everywhere.  And every time, operating with only their own narrow, self-interest in mind is deleterious to the organization as a whole.  But the topic here was families.  Doesn't do them any good either.
 
2014-05-12 07:39:18 AM  

Mugato: Mr. Right: It is frequently narcissism and selfishness that leads to divorce.  Narcissism is also at odds with any family values.

Yeah, the good old days when you married someone right out of high school whose locker happened to be next to yours and you stayed together for the sake of the kids, that always worked out.


I think, if you read carefully, you'll notice that the data shows that completing one's education, getting at least a good start on a career or occupation, then marrying and then having kids is the most successful.

Back during the Clinton era, I think it was Berkeley that came out with a study that, contrary to the prevailing opinion of "it's better to be from a broken home than in one," parents who could put their selfishness aside and stay together "for the kids" actually did turn out more emotionally stable, successful kids.  But again, part of doing it for the kids had to include respect for the spouse and sublimation of one's narcissistic impulses.

Narcissism is a mental condition.  All children are born with it.  As people mature and become aware of others, they are supposed to grow out of it.  Unfortunately, many do not.
 
2014-05-12 08:02:31 AM  

hubiestubert: women working were supposed to destroy families.

Lionel Mandrake: Stop whining and spend more time with your kids, asshats.


Serious question: do you think there could be a legitimate argument in saying that one parent (man or woman) at any given time should stay at home with the kids instead of trying to have a career?  I know this is not possible financially in many situations, but I'm talking about cases where it is. The idea would be that when you decide to have kids, that should be at least one parent's full time job, even if it means forgoing a career.  Plus you'll be freeing up employment spots for others, since the only jobs you create by working are nanny/daycare ones.

I'm not sure about this myself, which is why I'm asking.
 
2014-05-12 08:03:38 AM  

Mr. Right: Mugato: Mr. Right: It is frequently narcissism and selfishness that leads to divorce.  Narcissism is also at odds with any family values.

Yeah, the good old days when you married someone right out of high school whose locker happened to be next to yours and you stayed together for the sake of the kids, that always worked out.

I think, if you read carefully, you'll notice that the data shows that completing one's education, getting at least a good start on a career or occupation, then marrying and then having kids is the most successful.

Back during the Clinton era, I think it was Berkeley that came out with a study that, contrary to the prevailing opinion of "it's better to be from a broken home than in one," parents who could put their selfishness aside and stay together "for the kids" actually did turn out more emotionally stable, successful kids.  But again, part of doing it for the kids had to include respect for the spouse and sublimation of one's narcissistic impulses.

Narcissism is a mental condition.  All children are born with it.  As people mature and become aware of others, they are supposed to grow out of it.  Unfortunately, many do not.


Back in the days when high school sweethearts married, high school graduation WAS a complete education and all you needed to get your start in the careers available. So now the most stable marriages are between people who meet in college and marry a few years after graduation. Mostly that's because graduating college requires some minimum level of functionality, and having that degree lowers one's chances of unemployment and the marriage-wrecking stress that goes with it.

Also, putting selfishness aside and co-operating to raise the kids... turns out more emotionally stable children of divorce too.
Now, I don't understand why couples opt for divorce if they can work together that well, but I'm not in their bedrooms, so I don't expect to get it.
 
2014-05-12 08:04:12 AM  

Yankees Team Gynecologist: hubiestubert: women working were supposed to destroy families.
Lionel Mandrake: Stop whining and spend more time with your kids, asshats.

Serious question: do you think there could be a legitimate argument in saying that one parent (man or woman) at any given time should stay at home with the kids instead of trying to have a career?  I know this is not possible financially in many situations, but I'm talking about cases where it is. The idea would be that when you decide to have kids, that should be at least one parent's full time job, even if it means forgoing a career.  Plus you'll be freeing up employment spots for others, since the only jobs you create by working are nanny/daycare ones.

I'm not sure about this myself, which is why I'm asking.


And I'm not suggesting this as some kind of law, just a general principle.
 
2014-05-12 08:19:14 AM  

Yankees Team Gynecologist: hubiestubert: women working were supposed to destroy families.
Lionel Mandrake: Stop whining and spend more time with your kids, asshats.

Serious question: do you think there could be a legitimate argument in saying that one parent (man or woman) at any given time should stay at home with the kids instead of trying to have a career?  I know this is not possible financially in many situations, but I'm talking about cases where it is. The idea would be that when you decide to have kids, that should be at least one parent's full time job, even if it means forgoing a career.  Plus you'll be freeing up employment spots for others, since the only jobs you create by working are nanny/daycare ones.

I'm not sure about this myself, which is why I'm asking.


1. Some careers don't allow for a 15 year hiatus. Two or three kids have never required a lifetime to raise.
2. If you spend the money you earn over and above paying the nanny, that spending creates jobs too.

When you decide to have kids, it is still YOUR decision how to organize and conduct your family life. As long as the children are well adjusted and well cared for, nobody should have the right to limit your choices. Kids can thrive in all sorts of arrangements.
The healthiest young adults I know have parents who are well adjusted and happy. Few of these young adults had stay-at-home parents of their own. Some were sent to boarding schools. One lived with a foster family while mom and dad followed their careers in separate, inhospitable countries. The breadwinner/home-maker model is the best way for some. Not for others. Whatever works.
 
2014-05-12 08:19:47 AM  
Every generation thinks the one after them is worse off than they are, from a moral point of view.  This is because they view their childhood through a child's eye, and don't actually remember the real problems.

About 10 years ago, there used to be this old lady on the bus I took every day, who would sit up front and talk to the driver, going on and on and on about how much better the 1950s were, how it was a much simpler time and people were more moral and everything was better.  The driver, for his part, would just smile and nod, and occasionally laugh a little.  He was a black man, so I'm betting his recollection of the '50s was just a little bit different than hers.
 
2014-05-12 08:46:34 AM  

powhound: Looks like there is no problem with the American family(TM)


I want to retire so I can make $180,000 a year.  I don't know if having two kids would be worth the extra $50,000 income, though.
 
2014-05-12 08:49:52 AM  
It's a good thing opinions and facts are the same thing. If 64% of Americans believe it, it must be true!
 
2014-05-12 09:03:21 AM  
"64 per cent agree that modern family is weak"

Why so much hate for a silly sitcom?  There are moments where it is funny, and it has the hot babe angle covered with Sofía Vergara (almost snapped it off fappin' to her).  I enjoy watching it, when I catch it flipping channels.
 
2014-05-12 09:07:56 AM  

powhound: [i.imgur.com image 624x407]

Looks like there is no problem with the American family(TM)


My favorite part of that image is how everybody looks so sad.  Because having a six-figure income is worthless if you have to pay slightly more taxes.
 
2014-05-12 09:44:44 AM  

syrynxx: powhound: Looks like there is no problem with the American family(TM)

I want to retire so I can make $180,000 a year.  I don't know if having two kids would be worth the extra $50,000 income, though.


That pic has to be intentional bullshiat.
 
2014-05-12 09:49:49 AM  

Mugato: syrynxx: powhound: Looks like there is no problem with the American family(TM)

I want to retire so I can make $180,000 a year.  I don't know if having two kids would be worth the extra $50,000 income, though.

That pic has to be intentional bullshiat.


That was some finance magazine (I want to say Forbes?) that was trying to make the point that Obama's tax increases are hitting ordinary Americans and making it too hard to live.  Because people with six-figure incomes are clearly ordinary Americans who are struggling.
 
2014-05-12 09:57:51 AM  
I think marriages should expire after five years and require renewal.  I also think you should be able to be in more than one at once, a la Heinlein.  I think children should be creche-raised by people who actually love children, rather than their biological parents.  Most people aren't well equipped to raise children.
 
2014-05-12 10:04:12 AM  

HeartBurnKid: That was some finance magazine (I want to say Forbes?) that was trying to make the point that Obama's tax increases are hitting ordinary Americans and making it too hard to live.  Because people with six-figure incomes are clearly ordinary Americans who are struggling.


Wall Street Journal (I was a subscriber at the time).

I thought it was tone-deaf even taking into account their demographics...but they're far from the only offenders. Look in your local Sunday paper's (obligatory "for you kids, a newspaper is blah blah blah") home section and chances are you'll see puff pieces on "affordable" homes in the mid-six-figures and "simple" home improvement projects that "only" cost 65 grand.
 
2014-05-12 10:15:17 AM  

ecmoRandomNumbers: "Family-values" type people hate that idea, too, because they don't get to exercise their patriarchal, abusive bullshiat.


"Family-values"  = abusive?

/Jesus
 
2014-05-12 10:22:32 AM  

E5bie: If you spend the money you earn over and above paying the nanny, that spending creates jobs too.


The net effect could still be negative if wages don't keep pace with the increased supply of labor.

I agree with your overall point though--there's no one size fits all. My anecdotal evidence however is different from yours. I know people who are happy as parents but feel like they're a failure if they don't have a career, even if they don't absolutely need the income. Maybe they should embrace being a full-time parent, and society shouldn't stigmatize being a stay-at-home mom/dad.
 
2014-05-12 10:23:09 AM  
I'm amazed that Baby Boomers are romanticizing the past, totally shocked and in no way is it "something that they always do about everything".
 
2014-05-12 10:33:33 AM  

Aarontology: What the hell does that survey question even mean?


Thank you.  First thing I thought.
 
2014-05-12 10:51:31 AM  
i116.photobucket.com

Still hungry. Better walk to the bowling alley.
 
2014-05-12 11:02:45 AM  

Gunther: TheBigJerk: Then they decided to end it so that Peter Parker could be a constantly down-on-his-luck swinging bachelor again like in someone else' "good old days."

Take heart; in a decade or two there will be writers and artists working for Marvel who are nostalgic for the married Spider-Man of their childhood and will reverse it, probably to the wails of the current fans.


Probably.

Really the hardest part for me is just seeing Spider man as a young man anymore.  He's a divorcee, that's canon, and for my own headspace at least that puts him in the range of early 30s or older.

To be a swinging bachelor with his "Parker Luck" and "like the good old days" romantic paradigm he's chasing teenagers, college girls at the oldest.  The half-plus-seven rule says any girl under 22 (so most any girl in college) is outside the "not creepy" zone.  So he ends up being Dirty-Old-Man instead of Spider-Man.

One of the first stories I tried to read (it was boring) after he lost his job had 3 high school girls making a spiderman fan club, and as they bounced around in spiderman shirts and expressed desire for him I went, "oh, oh dear, ew."
 
2014-05-12 11:37:08 AM  
I don't understand how two people falling in love and staying with each other forever threatens marriage.

/we can adopt kids.  Lots of people do.
 
2014-05-12 11:44:38 AM  

log_jammin: Seventy-six per cent of Republicans answered that the modern family was weaker compared to 61 per cent of Democrats and Independents.

I love how they lumped democrats and independents together.


I'm pretty sure it's the GOP lumping us together.
 
2014-05-12 11:46:03 AM  

on the road: ecmoRandomNumbers: "Family-values" type people hate that idea, too, because they don't get to exercise their patriarchal, abusive bullshiat.

"Family-values"  = abusive?

/Jesus


When you use "Family values" the way Conservatives use it, yes.
 
2014-05-12 12:10:49 PM  

Mugato: syrynxx: powhound: Looks like there is no problem with the American family(TM)

I want to retire so I can make $180,000 a year.  I don't know if having two kids would be worth the extra $50,000 income, though.

That pic has to be intentional bullshiat.


I wish:  http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887323689604578220132 665726040
 
2014-05-12 12:21:31 PM  

Aarontology: What the hell does that survey question even mean?


It's a good indication that all the  "gays and liberals are destroying the American family" propaganda is working.  "No, the American family may not be disintegrating in any real sense, but we've convinced people that it has, so we're winning."

Meanwhile, The Way We Never Were would be a good antidote, except the people who most need to read it probably never will.
 
2014-05-12 12:23:28 PM  
An opinion poll is evidence of what, exactly?
 
2014-05-12 12:27:49 PM  
Polls that ask people their opinion of things may be useful to TV news idiots and politicians, but as a way of knowing what's actually going on, they're worse than useless.
 
2014-05-12 12:28:58 PM  

Yankees Team Gynecologist: hubiestubert: women working were supposed to destroy families.
Lionel Mandrake: Stop whining and spend more time with your kids, asshats.

Serious question: do you think there could be a legitimate argument in saying that one parent (man or woman) at any given time should stay at home with the kids instead of trying to have a career?


There could be, but the very idea has become somewhat tainted, as it's been used so much as a weapon against single-parent families and women in the workforce.  If you you disentangled it from those attacks, and backed it up with solid research, you might have something good to work with.

But then you'd have to ask yourself why do both parents "need" to work in the first place.  Does that mean wages are unfair?  Are people living overly-extravagant lifestyles?  Should we just back off and say they have the right to make their own choices and we shouldn't judge?
 
2014-05-12 12:53:57 PM  
97% of that question was highly subjective as well as the drawn conclusions.
 
2014-05-12 12:55:12 PM  

studebaker hoch: I don't understand how two people falling in love and staying with each other forever threatens marriage.

/we can adopt kids.  Lots of people do.


Some people think you need to have both a male and female parent in order to get a holistic approach to raising a child, each to serve as an example of how to be a positive man/woman and also how to treat the other gender with respect (for example, they'd argue a lesbian couple raising a girl wouldn't have any male input and so the girl would grow up with unrealistic ideas about masculinity).

When it comes to adoption, if a child can't have a parent of each gender, clearly it is preferrable to have them go without parental love whatsoever in an orphanage. Or to be raised by dysfunctional hetero parents. (sarcasm)
 
2014-05-12 01:20:48 PM  

HeartBurnKid: Every generation thinks the one after them is worse off than they are, from a moral point of view.  This is because they view their childhood through a child's eye, and don't actually remember the real problems.


"The children now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise."

Often mistakenly attributed to Plato, but actually written in 1907 ---- although it was ABOUT the children of Plato's age.
 
2014-05-12 01:24:47 PM  

Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo: I think marriages should expire after five years and require renewal.


Many science-fiction authors incorporate limited-term marriage licenses (often called "contracts") in (some of) their stories.  Larry Niven is well-known for it, for example.
 
2014-05-12 02:53:40 PM  

Fafai: Some people think you need to have both a male and female parent in order to get a holistic approach to raising a child, each to serve as an example of how to be a positive man/woman and also how to treat the other gender with respect (for example, they'd argue a lesbian couple raising a girl wouldn't have any male input and so the girl would grow up with unrealistic ideas about masculinity).


By that same logic, the only "proper" family would consist of at least one member for every other possible innate distinguishing feature among humans... You don't have a gay man, a lesbian, a black person, an Asian person, a dwarf, an albino, a ginger, and an American Indian in your family? Your kids are going to be so screwed up and won't know how to treat those type of people with respect!
 
2014-05-12 03:07:04 PM  

powhound: [i.imgur.com image 624x407]

Looks like there is no problem with the American family(TM)


Oh those poor poor rich people.
 
2014-05-12 03:07:11 PM  
I see the Daily Fail is up to it's usual concern trolling.
 
2014-05-12 03:07:33 PM  

RobSeace: ecmoRandomNumbers: I think the idea of the American Nuclear Family has outlived its usefulness.

Indeed! Isn't it time for Wind Families or Solar Families or Geothermal Families?


I was raised in a hydroelectric family.
 
2014-05-12 03:13:56 PM  

grumpfuff: I see the Daily Fail is up to it's usual concern trolling.


I'd love to see a caged death match between the publisher of the Daily Fail and Rupert Murdoch.
 
2014-05-12 03:54:38 PM  

RobSeace: Fafai: Some people think you need to have both a male and female parent in order to get a holistic approach to raising a child, each to serve as an example of how to be a positive man/woman and also how to treat the other gender with respect (for example, they'd argue a lesbian couple raising a girl wouldn't have any male input and so the girl would grow up with unrealistic ideas about masculinity).

By that same logic, the only "proper" family would consist of at least one member for every other possible innate distinguishing feature among humans... You don't have a gay man, a lesbian, a black person, an Asian person, a dwarf, an albino, a ginger, and an American Indian in your family? Your kids are going to be so screwed up and won't know how to treat those type of people with respect!


To be fair, that's actually true with some people.  We call them "Conservatives".

You ever notice that the only conservatives who actually give a damn about LGBT issues are ones with a LGBT person in their family?
 
2014-05-12 05:02:16 PM  

Aarontology: What the hell does that survey question even mean?


I was going to come in here to ask that. Glad it's been covered.
 
2014-05-12 05:11:00 PM  

redly1: Ok..it just hit me. Claire Huxtable was originally married to a white guy. They had two kids, got a divorce, and then she remarried and started a new family.


African Americans are born in all shades, even within the same family. Consider it a part of the legacy of slavery.
 
2014-05-12 05:20:07 PM  

FTDA: RobSeace: ecmoRandomNumbers: I think the idea of the American Nuclear Family has outlived its usefulness.

Indeed! Isn't it time for Wind Families or Solar Families or Geothermal Families?

I was raised in a hydroelectric family.


www.amk.to
 
2014-05-12 10:07:14 PM  

ecmoRandomNumbers: I think the idea of the American Nuclear Family has outlived its usefulness. It's time to think about family in a different way -- larger scale -- "villages."

"Family-values" type people hate that idea, too, because they don't get to exercise their patriarchal, abusive bullshiat.
[img.fark.net image 288x385]


cdn2-b.examiner.com
 
2014-05-12 11:32:59 PM  

ecmoRandomNumbers: I think the idea of the American Nuclear Family has outlived its usefulness. It's time to think about family in a different way -- larger scale -- "villages."


What do the 95% of the population who don't live in small towns do?

RobSeace: By that same logic, the only "proper" family would consist of at least one member for every other possible innate distinguishing feature among humans


I dunno, I can kinda see the logic behind it. I know a few guys from single-mother households who would have really have benefited from a male role model at a young age.

That said, I don't think it's necessary that they be the parent and I really don't think it's necessary for the government to try to regulate it.
 
Displayed 93 of 93 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report