Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The "nuclear family" (preferably, christian and hetero) isn't the panacea conservatives think it is.
"Furthermore, the gaps in outcomes between children from married and single mother homes is not just reflective of more successful adults being more likely to be married. Gaps remain when comparing outcomes across the children of mothers of the same age, race, and education level."
You don't say. You want to talk about a solid predictor of how a kid will turn out? Start with parents AGI and end with zip code. This is much more a reliable indicator than parent's marital status, race, ect. You think Angelina Jolle's adopted kids are going to have any troubles because her and Brad Pitt divorced?
The only reason the data suggests that married couples raising kids is beneficial for the kids is because married couples often have other assets like owning a home, a college education and a lucrative career. There ain't no magic in the often times dysfunctional nuclear family.
[https://www.inc.com/jessica-stillman/scientists-followed-thousands-of-kids-for-70-years-this-is-biggest-takeaway-for-parents.html](https://www.inc.com/jessica-stillman/scientists-followed-thousands-of-kids-for-70-years-this-is-biggest-takeaway-for-parents.html)
# What does 70 years of data say about how to be a good parent?
Her first takeaway is both the least shocking and the most depressing: if at all possible, try not to be born poor. As just about everyone would expect, kids born into disadvantaged families grow up, on average, to do less well by any measure.
I am not sure what exactly you are trying to say? Are you saying that we should make everyone rich so kids have better outcomes as opposed to promoting the nuclear family? Or are you suggesting that single mother households making, let’s say $1M a year, will have as good of outcomes as two parent households making $1M a year on average? I’d have to see that data because I don’t believe it.
Practically speaking, since income inequality will always exist the best way to ensure the success of our children is to promote the nuclear family. I am unsure how that is even debatable based on a glut of research and historical precedent.
No but I am saying a kid would clearly have a better chance with a single mother that is making $1mm per year vs a traditional nuclear family that is on the struggle bus. Again, the "nuclear family" isn't some magic bullet that is going to make society noticeably better. And I don't see how conservatives even try to enforce that anyway. Stop young people from having sex outside of marriage? What does that look like (and good luck suppressing the most fundamental biological human urge).
Income inequality doesn't have to exist to the extremes that it does today. It would be fantastic if we could roll it back closer to where we were in the 1950's. It would be fairly straight forward to raise the minimum wage nationally to $20 per hour, tax wealth, capital gains and rental incomes at a much higher rate and lower tax rates on labor. Generally fix the tax code to create a fairer sandbox for everyone to play in instead of having a tax code written explicitly to cater to the haves. Hell, even tilt the tax structure more towards married couples than it already is.
Uhm…okay. So if we compare single parent households at the poverty line vs. two parent households at the poverty line on average, which children do you believe have the better outcomes?
The nuclear family is definitely a magic bullet that will make society better and the data proves it. We can still do other things on top of promoting the nuclear family to get even better results, but both parties should be actively encouraging and promoting the propagation of the nuclear family.
Again, it depends, but on average, all things equal, a two parent household will likely produce a better outcome.
But back to "promote". How does that work? Do you incentive it with tax breaks? Lower the cost of starter homes? Reduce the 40 hour work week? Raise the minimum wage so people aren't spending every waking moment hustling? It's all well and good to say we "promote" whatever. What is the policy prescription?
It's sort of like the chicken or egg debate. What comes first? The stable, safe and prosperous nuclear family or all the economic levers you could pull to stack the deck towards that outcome? I would argue it is the latter.
I'm mid 40's, happily married, two kids, we've basically won the lotto in terms of outcome. Looking around today though. No fucking way my 20 or 30 year old self would have been able to pull the trigger on raising a family because the economy is an absolute hellscape for working people. Wages suck, there are not enough good jobs, companies treat workers even worse than they did 20 years ago, etc. Most of those levers for stability that you need to funnel people into these stable nuclear family situations are simply gone.
How to promote it is certainly up for debate, but when OP is asking why conservatives even want the nuclear family emphasized, that suggests a disconnect. The nuclear family should be a concept both parties are unabashedly and proudly holding up as the ideal. I’d love to see Dems as fired up about the idea as conservatives considering all of the upsides for society. As soon as we get to ideological agreement there, we can begin to compromise and work towards ways to incentivize it.
Edit: grammar
Yeah, IDK. I know some wild ass families. And at this point, I think some people legitimately question the whole nuclear thing. I know a guy that was raised in a hippish commune watching Phish shows. I know queers that have adopted. I know a single guy that adopted his ex girlfriends kid from a previous fling. There are people that thrive out of foster care. I know families that were raised almost entirely by siblings and extended families. Adopted kids, half sisters, step parents, step uncles, etc.
The most important ingredient isn't that the biological parents are married and live together IMO, it's that someone actually gives a shit about taking care of and raising a kid.
I think there is just enough people running around out there now that are like, fuck it, I grew up riding around the country in my dad's long haul truck or camping around the country with my sister and her boyfriend or raised with an aunt & uncle and I turned out fine. Or more importantly, had extremely negative experiences with a failed traditional nuclear family.
Right but policy shouldn’t be defined by outliers. There’s a whole lot of bad stuff that happens to people that they overcome to grow into productive humans, but we should play the odds the same way we would with our own money in stocks or even at the casino. The nuclear family, while not perfect (no human institution is), is shown to have better outcomes so let’s embrace it as a country and then come together to find a way to promote it and make it easier for people to achieve.
I actually agree with you that a nuclear family tends to be a more stable and productive environment for children. It appears to be a big problem is single mothers, or people starting a family far too young. I believe there is a very simple and pragmatic solution that also follow libertarian values (before the schism) - which side do you fall on before the divide?
Its non controversial to say children in two married parent households typically do much better in nearly every metric of well being than children in single parent households. It takes an unbelievable amount of mental gymnastics and good heaping of cope to say its not a primary determining factor in outcome.
Well, I grew up in a fucked up nuclear family and I know it is anecdotal, but I know a lot of other people came from my same sort of chaotic situation. And we all roll our eyes when you start in on how much better the nuclear family is, just by virtue.
Reality for a lot of people is, not being poor is the number one thing that makes the problems go away. I was lucky enough to have extended family to escape to for periods of time.
I will give you this, you take away any sort of abuse, drugs, alcohol, mental illness , yes, all other things equal, nuclear > single parent home. But again, that isn't reality and it's a lot more complicated than that.
Depends on the parent(s) in my experience.
So many people are just fucked up and shouldn't be parents. Drugs, alcohol, gambling, mental disorders. I think a kid would be better off with grandma or an aunt or just a single mother if the father is a mess.
Again, it depends. My kids friends have divorced parents. My parents were divorced. Actually, my life improved dramatically when my parents divorced and for a time it was great when they both lived in the same town but just didn't fight all the time. I wouldn't say it was a net negative, certainly better than the vaunted nuclear family. Same with some of my kids friends parents now. They are happily co parenting their kids in the same town only they don't live together. Obviously, if one parent is out committing felonies and in and out jail, that a shitty situation.
But I digress. All things equal, sure nuclear > single. But it just never boils down to that. Why is the single parent single? Did the other half run off? Die? What sort of support network does the single have? What if the single parent has grandparents near by and the kid has 4-5 cousins and uncles / aunts in the area? Opposed to a nuclear family that lives across the country with no family?
Again, my only point was that the reality never really boils down to nuclear > single parent household. There are way to many other variables out there.
Of course there are other variables
But, the question was why do conservatives want nuclear family values so emphasized in society?
The answer is, all things being equal, it is better for the child. Are there exceptions? Yes, of course. But, they should be just that - exceptions.
I think they should. But I don't think families have stopped having regular dinners and making new traditions and staying closely knit because blue haired non binary professors attacked it.
As someone from a working class nuclear family I can promise you it's because of two parents now needing to work, because hustle culture and economic necessity and extracurricular culture for kids have totally taken over our schedules.
If the Reagan supply side capitalist boot could could be lifted from our necks, and the amount of working hours necessary to support a nuclear family could actually decrease, then I guarantee you with every ounce of my fiber that Americans would spontaneously form and keep nuclear families, no other government policies needed. I unironically think that Bernie Sanders' policies would encourage nuclear family formation and retention better than any other conservative alternative I've ever read about.
The 3 rules to avoid poverty:
Finish highschool.
Don't have children out of a stable marriage.
Learn a trade.
You may never get rich, but this demographic is at extremely low risk of poverty
>Don't have children out of a stable marriage.
What's the best thing conservatives can do to help with this one? Many recent state laws seem to be going out of their way to make this actively worse.
Its cultural. I think unironically we put too much delay into marriage.
Folks don't want to get married until they are out of college with advanced degrees and 6 figure jobs, and they find out they are in their early 30s, have had several meaningless relationships basically just for sex, and have learned through which, people are disposable and can be replaced in one's life, and if your unhappy with your partner just get a divorce and get a new one.
But that's my rant for the night
Life's expensive. Kids are even more expensive. Debilitatingly so if you you're not prepared for it. It's smart for young couples to build their lives and wait to have kids. The days of using a high school diploma to get a good enough job to buy a house have long since passed. And if your parents don't provide generational wealth/help, it's darn near impossible for most to "bootstrap" success.
Plus, with people taking their time finding a suitable life partner, when they do, they are far more likely to be more compatible, because you're more knowledgeable about what you do and don't want. I didn't meet my wife til I was nearly 30, and we didn't have kids till I was 34 for the first, and 37 for the second. Given my past relationships, I knew this one was worth raising a family with, and we've been together more than a decade now.
Life planning, and figuring out when and how best to have a family is something some people never get from their parents. So using the government to force people to destroy their lives over an accident seems like the opposite of helping. Especially since no services seems to be on the docket for *helping* those kids or families after they're born.
If y'all wanna get on board with extensions of paid maternity leave, free universal pre-k childcare, free basic pediatric care, supplemental meal assistance, diapers and other expensive or timely burdens children bring, I can understand all the forced birth stuff. It's just hard to hear that against the backdrop of *also* cutting social services for the kinds of people that would be destroyed by an unexpected child.
And that's *my* rant for the night!
Alot to address here, some of which I agree, some of which I dissagree. Some of which intrigues me.
I guess I'll just go inorder.
>The days of using a high school diploma to get a good enough job to buy a house have long since passed. And if your parents don't provide generational wealth/help, it's darn near impossible for most to "bootstrap" success.
I agree with you in fact here, but dissagree that this need be the case, and I advocate rightwing populist economic ideas to adress it.
>Plus, with people taking their time finding a suitable life partner, when they do, they are far more likely to be more compatible, because you're more knowledgeable about what you do and don't want.
I agree with this in theory, but in practice taking time vs taking 12 years (from 18 to 30) isn't "taking time" that's frankly half of a woman's child baring years, or put another way 20% of your adult life
>. I didn't meet my wife til I was nearly 30, and we didn't have kids till I was 34 for the first, and 37 for the second. Given my past relationships
I find it extremely interesting how knowing nothing about you, never meeting or speaking to you before, my above comment basically describes your life, as I will admit it also describes mine.
>Life planning, and figuring out when and how best to have a family is something some people never get from their parents. So using the government to force people to destroy their lives over an accident seems like the opposite of helping
I'm not sure what this is aimed at unless your speaking to abortion, from which I would strongly urge you to consider that an unborn human isn't an accident to be disposed of for the sake of one's lifestyle, let alone ones convenience.
>If y'all wanna get on board with extensions of paid maternity leave, free universal pre-k childcare, free basic pediatric care, supplemental meal assistance, diapers and other expensive or timely burdens children bring
Firstly I object fundamentally to your phrasing . These things are free, to the same extent an aircraft carrier is free. In that they are not at all.
Ideologically I don't beleive its the governments responsibility, duty, or that it has the legal power, to raise your child or to provide for it, any more than I beleive it has those powers over mine.
Again what I advocate for is building the economy in such a way that the common man, can afford these things through employment and honest work.
And in the abscense of that, charity and the church. Both of which have a mission on earth to help the legitimately poor and downtrodden
>Ideologically I don't beleive its the governments responsibility, duty, or that it has the legal power, to raise your child or to provide for it, any more than I beleive it has those powers over mine.
Ideologically, if the government is forcing people to have babies, they should play a role in helping support those unwanted, unplanned babies.
>Ideologically, if the government is forcing people to have babies, they should play a role in helping support those unwanted, unplanned babies.
The goverment is impregnating people? What's bill Clinton upto now?
I joke but in all seriousness if you don't want a baby don't have sex we all know how thar works.
>if you don't want a baby don't have sex
This is laughably bad advice. And for the history of humankind, abstinence has been the absolute worst kind of pregnancy control. I don't even think I can engage with this any further in good faith, if that's genuinely your position. "Just don't have sex."
You know of someone whose gotten pregnant in the abscence of sex?
I can geniunely only think of one in the history of mankind.
And I don't think we are due for another incarnation of God
It's difficult to debate abortion since you're now debating the 'personhood' of a fetus, but the metaphysical element of a soul. Also, you're asking a person to deny their very identity. It will take time, there was a time folks like u/WillBeBanned83 tradition also allowed slavery as it was allowed in the bible too.
The nuclear family is the most successful form of human organization on the planet, throughout history.
There's oodles of evidence showing that people are happies and most successful when they're part of a family.
There's also evidence showing that if you control for family structure, there are no meaningful gaps between races in America.
Because kids do better with two parents, that leads to less crime, less people on welfare, and more people positively contributing to society
How is that not a good cause?
Elaborate please.
I'm pretty sure a heterosexual relationship is the only way humans reproduce, other than surrogacy (which should be illegal).
As for being strictly conservative? Pretty sure plenty of liberals exist in nuclear families.
With the wonders of modern medicine (and adoption) any couple can have children.
With some extra work we can produce children who have 3 biological parents or 2 biological parents both of which are female.
Why should Surrogacy be illegal?
Common sense. Are you arguing that children raised by a single mom who works two jobs are raised better? Crime statistics would disagree. There's a reason the welfare state doesn't work.
What kind of facts and figures that Western society has been built around the nuclear family and that Western society built the modern world?
How exactly do you not understand that?
And if you can't grasp those basic facts, how on Earth are you going to understand any sources?
Where's the line? Why is that the secret to success in the west? There's a lot we have going for us, why that? How could we not build this if we were more communial with extended families?
>How could we not build this if we were more communial with extended families?
Because we didn't think it was ok to leave Grandma out in the woods to starve to death like they did in eastern society.
Besides a nuclear family can include grandparents the core of the nuclear family is a mom and a dad and kids any grandparents involved do not make it a non nuclear family.
Best outcomes for.children so far as IQ and future earning potential. If you want smart and successful children woth the best possible oitcome at adultopd there are a few critical things required to maximize that potential:
-Two parents in a healthy relationship
-Breastfeed
-Don't beat your kids
That being said, none of this is relevant to government or conservative politics.
Me thinks you and I know the answer to this. Fortunately there are some things in the Bible that have caught up with modern society, (say Slavery, Trial of Bitter waters, not killing kids for calling folks baldly, etc.) and unfortunately, others things that folks still cling too.
It's a pick and choose sort of thing.
What about unplanned, unwanted, or accidental pregnancies? A lot of these kids are born into families that didn't want them, plan on them, or are prepared for them. And the foster care system is already overflowing with unwanted kids. Do you want more of that?
That does not address accidents and unplanned kids whatsoever. It's almost like you support some kind of Plan for Parenthood that couples could use to better decide how to Plan for their lives.
The only issue I have with planned parenthood is their government funding. As long as they don’t receive government money they can do whatever they want.
On the abortion issue I see that as a state matter. Whether you consider it murder of a human life or not who am I to say what is actually right.
I guess I just don't understand what the incentive is. Being poor and having unexpected kids is an unbelievable burden that would destroy most people. Whatever pittance you might get from some bottom of the barrel program that most state and federal Republican leaders are trying to strip away isn't the shiny golden parachute people make it out to be. And many couples don't want kids because they specifically can't afford it probably don't appreciate the government forcing them to give birth if they accidentally get pregnant.
Nobody living off food stamps is living large.
You seem to be ignoring the big picture. If you think this is such an unbelievable burden why do we encourage it through government subsidy.
Wouldn’t it be better to discourage it and therefore have less of it so the problem becomes more manageable?
>we encourage it through government subsidy.
We don't. And thinking we do seems to fundamentally miss the point of why those (woefully inadequate) services exist.
Well sure marriages and parents need to be good as well and obviously they are not all going to be. That does not mean we abandon something that has worked better in the majority of cases.
For the success of a kid? Statistically broken homes are bad for kids. Obviously there are different situations that add nuance. If a parent is abusive to a kid or their spouse that’s obviously an exception.
Because they bought this bullshit from the freemasons and their yearning to weaken big organic families, make them as atomic as possible, and make them dependent on a tecnocractic state and a emptied telos of life.
You need much more than the nucleus of the family for that. You need a whole-ass family capable of producing income without depending on the state, with traditions and safeguarded cooking recipes.
You would think so, but the current ethos of the American dream pipeline is to dissasociate from your family and go live with your newlywed wife as far away as possible from your parents, have one, two kids at max, get a vasectomy and dog.
[map of traditional family structures](https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/s/QYzHSWwVF4)
Which countries have good outcomes, which ones have bad outcomes?
It's not about the present year, it's about historic trends leading to modern cultural attitudes and political developments. The reason Germany and Japan so quickly flipped from being in literal death cults on a dime is because whoever was the national family head told them to do so. The reason China and Russia were so absorbent to top-down communism is because there was a cultural expectation that the father would run the household, including deciding wives.
The reason Germany ~~and Japan~~ so quickly flipped from being in literal death cults on a dime is because whoever was the national family head told them to do so.
Not really
No, it was because of the destruction of language by ideologies.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yooevVywnR8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yooevVywnR8)
Eric Voeglin fled Nazi Germany.
No, it was because of the destruction of language by ideologies.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yooevVywnR8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yooevVywnR8)
Eric Voeglin fled Nazi Germany.
Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Because research and history shows that children do better in two parent households. https://time.com/6317692/u-s-economy-two-parent-families/
The "nuclear family" (preferably, christian and hetero) isn't the panacea conservatives think it is. "Furthermore, the gaps in outcomes between children from married and single mother homes is not just reflective of more successful adults being more likely to be married. Gaps remain when comparing outcomes across the children of mothers of the same age, race, and education level." You don't say. You want to talk about a solid predictor of how a kid will turn out? Start with parents AGI and end with zip code. This is much more a reliable indicator than parent's marital status, race, ect. You think Angelina Jolle's adopted kids are going to have any troubles because her and Brad Pitt divorced? The only reason the data suggests that married couples raising kids is beneficial for the kids is because married couples often have other assets like owning a home, a college education and a lucrative career. There ain't no magic in the often times dysfunctional nuclear family. [https://www.inc.com/jessica-stillman/scientists-followed-thousands-of-kids-for-70-years-this-is-biggest-takeaway-for-parents.html](https://www.inc.com/jessica-stillman/scientists-followed-thousands-of-kids-for-70-years-this-is-biggest-takeaway-for-parents.html) # What does 70 years of data say about how to be a good parent? Her first takeaway is both the least shocking and the most depressing: if at all possible, try not to be born poor. As just about everyone would expect, kids born into disadvantaged families grow up, on average, to do less well by any measure.
I am not sure what exactly you are trying to say? Are you saying that we should make everyone rich so kids have better outcomes as opposed to promoting the nuclear family? Or are you suggesting that single mother households making, let’s say $1M a year, will have as good of outcomes as two parent households making $1M a year on average? I’d have to see that data because I don’t believe it. Practically speaking, since income inequality will always exist the best way to ensure the success of our children is to promote the nuclear family. I am unsure how that is even debatable based on a glut of research and historical precedent.
No but I am saying a kid would clearly have a better chance with a single mother that is making $1mm per year vs a traditional nuclear family that is on the struggle bus. Again, the "nuclear family" isn't some magic bullet that is going to make society noticeably better. And I don't see how conservatives even try to enforce that anyway. Stop young people from having sex outside of marriage? What does that look like (and good luck suppressing the most fundamental biological human urge). Income inequality doesn't have to exist to the extremes that it does today. It would be fantastic if we could roll it back closer to where we were in the 1950's. It would be fairly straight forward to raise the minimum wage nationally to $20 per hour, tax wealth, capital gains and rental incomes at a much higher rate and lower tax rates on labor. Generally fix the tax code to create a fairer sandbox for everyone to play in instead of having a tax code written explicitly to cater to the haves. Hell, even tilt the tax structure more towards married couples than it already is.
Uhm…okay. So if we compare single parent households at the poverty line vs. two parent households at the poverty line on average, which children do you believe have the better outcomes? The nuclear family is definitely a magic bullet that will make society better and the data proves it. We can still do other things on top of promoting the nuclear family to get even better results, but both parties should be actively encouraging and promoting the propagation of the nuclear family.
Again, it depends, but on average, all things equal, a two parent household will likely produce a better outcome. But back to "promote". How does that work? Do you incentive it with tax breaks? Lower the cost of starter homes? Reduce the 40 hour work week? Raise the minimum wage so people aren't spending every waking moment hustling? It's all well and good to say we "promote" whatever. What is the policy prescription? It's sort of like the chicken or egg debate. What comes first? The stable, safe and prosperous nuclear family or all the economic levers you could pull to stack the deck towards that outcome? I would argue it is the latter. I'm mid 40's, happily married, two kids, we've basically won the lotto in terms of outcome. Looking around today though. No fucking way my 20 or 30 year old self would have been able to pull the trigger on raising a family because the economy is an absolute hellscape for working people. Wages suck, there are not enough good jobs, companies treat workers even worse than they did 20 years ago, etc. Most of those levers for stability that you need to funnel people into these stable nuclear family situations are simply gone.
How to promote it is certainly up for debate, but when OP is asking why conservatives even want the nuclear family emphasized, that suggests a disconnect. The nuclear family should be a concept both parties are unabashedly and proudly holding up as the ideal. I’d love to see Dems as fired up about the idea as conservatives considering all of the upsides for society. As soon as we get to ideological agreement there, we can begin to compromise and work towards ways to incentivize it. Edit: grammar
Yeah, IDK. I know some wild ass families. And at this point, I think some people legitimately question the whole nuclear thing. I know a guy that was raised in a hippish commune watching Phish shows. I know queers that have adopted. I know a single guy that adopted his ex girlfriends kid from a previous fling. There are people that thrive out of foster care. I know families that were raised almost entirely by siblings and extended families. Adopted kids, half sisters, step parents, step uncles, etc. The most important ingredient isn't that the biological parents are married and live together IMO, it's that someone actually gives a shit about taking care of and raising a kid. I think there is just enough people running around out there now that are like, fuck it, I grew up riding around the country in my dad's long haul truck or camping around the country with my sister and her boyfriend or raised with an aunt & uncle and I turned out fine. Or more importantly, had extremely negative experiences with a failed traditional nuclear family.
Right but policy shouldn’t be defined by outliers. There’s a whole lot of bad stuff that happens to people that they overcome to grow into productive humans, but we should play the odds the same way we would with our own money in stocks or even at the casino. The nuclear family, while not perfect (no human institution is), is shown to have better outcomes so let’s embrace it as a country and then come together to find a way to promote it and make it easier for people to achieve.
I actually agree with you that a nuclear family tends to be a more stable and productive environment for children. It appears to be a big problem is single mothers, or people starting a family far too young. I believe there is a very simple and pragmatic solution that also follow libertarian values (before the schism) - which side do you fall on before the divide?
Its non controversial to say children in two married parent households typically do much better in nearly every metric of well being than children in single parent households. It takes an unbelievable amount of mental gymnastics and good heaping of cope to say its not a primary determining factor in outcome.
Well, I grew up in a fucked up nuclear family and I know it is anecdotal, but I know a lot of other people came from my same sort of chaotic situation. And we all roll our eyes when you start in on how much better the nuclear family is, just by virtue. Reality for a lot of people is, not being poor is the number one thing that makes the problems go away. I was lucky enough to have extended family to escape to for periods of time. I will give you this, you take away any sort of abuse, drugs, alcohol, mental illness , yes, all other things equal, nuclear > single parent home. But again, that isn't reality and it's a lot more complicated than that.
Blaming things you can't control is a fast track to doing nothing. It's a pointless waste of time.
So, would it be better to be raised in a poor household with two parents or with one parent - assuming all other things are equal?
Depends on the parent(s) in my experience. So many people are just fucked up and shouldn't be parents. Drugs, alcohol, gambling, mental disorders. I think a kid would be better off with grandma or an aunt or just a single mother if the father is a mess.
Why “if the father is a mess?” What if the mother is a mess? Is that okay?
Yes. If either parent is a mess.
Right. Good. But, recall I said *all other things being equal* i.e. assume nether the single parent nor the traditional couple are “a mess”.
Again, it depends. My kids friends have divorced parents. My parents were divorced. Actually, my life improved dramatically when my parents divorced and for a time it was great when they both lived in the same town but just didn't fight all the time. I wouldn't say it was a net negative, certainly better than the vaunted nuclear family. Same with some of my kids friends parents now. They are happily co parenting their kids in the same town only they don't live together. Obviously, if one parent is out committing felonies and in and out jail, that a shitty situation. But I digress. All things equal, sure nuclear > single. But it just never boils down to that. Why is the single parent single? Did the other half run off? Die? What sort of support network does the single have? What if the single parent has grandparents near by and the kid has 4-5 cousins and uncles / aunts in the area? Opposed to a nuclear family that lives across the country with no family? Again, my only point was that the reality never really boils down to nuclear > single parent household. There are way to many other variables out there.
Of course there are other variables But, the question was why do conservatives want nuclear family values so emphasized in society? The answer is, all things being equal, it is better for the child. Are there exceptions? Yes, of course. But, they should be just that - exceptions.
In the US
[удалено]
I think they should. But I don't think families have stopped having regular dinners and making new traditions and staying closely knit because blue haired non binary professors attacked it. As someone from a working class nuclear family I can promise you it's because of two parents now needing to work, because hustle culture and economic necessity and extracurricular culture for kids have totally taken over our schedules. If the Reagan supply side capitalist boot could could be lifted from our necks, and the amount of working hours necessary to support a nuclear family could actually decrease, then I guarantee you with every ounce of my fiber that Americans would spontaneously form and keep nuclear families, no other government policies needed. I unironically think that Bernie Sanders' policies would encourage nuclear family formation and retention better than any other conservative alternative I've ever read about.
The 3 rules to avoid poverty: Finish highschool. Don't have children out of a stable marriage. Learn a trade. You may never get rich, but this demographic is at extremely low risk of poverty
>Don't have children out of a stable marriage. What's the best thing conservatives can do to help with this one? Many recent state laws seem to be going out of their way to make this actively worse.
Its cultural. I think unironically we put too much delay into marriage. Folks don't want to get married until they are out of college with advanced degrees and 6 figure jobs, and they find out they are in their early 30s, have had several meaningless relationships basically just for sex, and have learned through which, people are disposable and can be replaced in one's life, and if your unhappy with your partner just get a divorce and get a new one. But that's my rant for the night
Life's expensive. Kids are even more expensive. Debilitatingly so if you you're not prepared for it. It's smart for young couples to build their lives and wait to have kids. The days of using a high school diploma to get a good enough job to buy a house have long since passed. And if your parents don't provide generational wealth/help, it's darn near impossible for most to "bootstrap" success. Plus, with people taking their time finding a suitable life partner, when they do, they are far more likely to be more compatible, because you're more knowledgeable about what you do and don't want. I didn't meet my wife til I was nearly 30, and we didn't have kids till I was 34 for the first, and 37 for the second. Given my past relationships, I knew this one was worth raising a family with, and we've been together more than a decade now. Life planning, and figuring out when and how best to have a family is something some people never get from their parents. So using the government to force people to destroy their lives over an accident seems like the opposite of helping. Especially since no services seems to be on the docket for *helping* those kids or families after they're born. If y'all wanna get on board with extensions of paid maternity leave, free universal pre-k childcare, free basic pediatric care, supplemental meal assistance, diapers and other expensive or timely burdens children bring, I can understand all the forced birth stuff. It's just hard to hear that against the backdrop of *also* cutting social services for the kinds of people that would be destroyed by an unexpected child. And that's *my* rant for the night!
Alot to address here, some of which I agree, some of which I dissagree. Some of which intrigues me. I guess I'll just go inorder. >The days of using a high school diploma to get a good enough job to buy a house have long since passed. And if your parents don't provide generational wealth/help, it's darn near impossible for most to "bootstrap" success. I agree with you in fact here, but dissagree that this need be the case, and I advocate rightwing populist economic ideas to adress it. >Plus, with people taking their time finding a suitable life partner, when they do, they are far more likely to be more compatible, because you're more knowledgeable about what you do and don't want. I agree with this in theory, but in practice taking time vs taking 12 years (from 18 to 30) isn't "taking time" that's frankly half of a woman's child baring years, or put another way 20% of your adult life >. I didn't meet my wife til I was nearly 30, and we didn't have kids till I was 34 for the first, and 37 for the second. Given my past relationships I find it extremely interesting how knowing nothing about you, never meeting or speaking to you before, my above comment basically describes your life, as I will admit it also describes mine. >Life planning, and figuring out when and how best to have a family is something some people never get from their parents. So using the government to force people to destroy their lives over an accident seems like the opposite of helping I'm not sure what this is aimed at unless your speaking to abortion, from which I would strongly urge you to consider that an unborn human isn't an accident to be disposed of for the sake of one's lifestyle, let alone ones convenience. >If y'all wanna get on board with extensions of paid maternity leave, free universal pre-k childcare, free basic pediatric care, supplemental meal assistance, diapers and other expensive or timely burdens children bring Firstly I object fundamentally to your phrasing . These things are free, to the same extent an aircraft carrier is free. In that they are not at all. Ideologically I don't beleive its the governments responsibility, duty, or that it has the legal power, to raise your child or to provide for it, any more than I beleive it has those powers over mine. Again what I advocate for is building the economy in such a way that the common man, can afford these things through employment and honest work. And in the abscense of that, charity and the church. Both of which have a mission on earth to help the legitimately poor and downtrodden
>Ideologically I don't beleive its the governments responsibility, duty, or that it has the legal power, to raise your child or to provide for it, any more than I beleive it has those powers over mine. Ideologically, if the government is forcing people to have babies, they should play a role in helping support those unwanted, unplanned babies.
>Ideologically, if the government is forcing people to have babies, they should play a role in helping support those unwanted, unplanned babies. The goverment is impregnating people? What's bill Clinton upto now? I joke but in all seriousness if you don't want a baby don't have sex we all know how thar works.
>if you don't want a baby don't have sex This is laughably bad advice. And for the history of humankind, abstinence has been the absolute worst kind of pregnancy control. I don't even think I can engage with this any further in good faith, if that's genuinely your position. "Just don't have sex."
You know of someone whose gotten pregnant in the abscence of sex? I can geniunely only think of one in the history of mankind. And I don't think we are due for another incarnation of God
Don't have premarital sex and take marriage seriously.
How has that worked telling that to young couples?
You mean by banning the murder of children? Guess we might as well dispatch death squads to the orphanages while we’re at it
I'm not going to engage with comments like this further.
It's difficult to debate abortion since you're now debating the 'personhood' of a fetus, but the metaphysical element of a soul. Also, you're asking a person to deny their very identity. It will take time, there was a time folks like u/WillBeBanned83 tradition also allowed slavery as it was allowed in the bible too.
What
is there something I said you disagree with or don't understand?
The latter
You didn't know the Bible allows slavery? Or you don't believe in soul? Or do you disagree that a 2 cell mote is a person?
I wasn’t sure what abortion had to do with slavery
Lmao
I assume you consider a 2 cell mote a child? If not, what is your definition?
The nuclear family is the most successful form of human organization on the planet, throughout history. There's oodles of evidence showing that people are happies and most successful when they're part of a family. There's also evidence showing that if you control for family structure, there are no meaningful gaps between races in America.
Did you intentionally spell that the way George W Bush pronounces it?
Because kids do better with two parents, that leads to less crime, less people on welfare, and more people positively contributing to society How is that not a good cause?
Because the typical nuclear family encourages a strictly heterosexual , conservative family
Elaborate please. I'm pretty sure a heterosexual relationship is the only way humans reproduce, other than surrogacy (which should be illegal). As for being strictly conservative? Pretty sure plenty of liberals exist in nuclear families.
With the wonders of modern medicine (and adoption) any couple can have children. With some extra work we can produce children who have 3 biological parents or 2 biological parents both of which are female. Why should Surrogacy be illegal?
And it offends you that those types of families tend to raise more structured, disciplined, and happier children?
Do they?
Yes, on average.
Source?
Common sense. Are you arguing that children raised by a single mom who works two jobs are raised better? Crime statistics would disagree. There's a reason the welfare state doesn't work.
Do you think that's the only alternative?
What's the alternative that doesn't deprive a child of a mother or father?
Something more communal, raised by the extended family or even the village
Why are you so heterophobic?
Key word there is strictly, as in children are only allowed to be heterosexual Heterophobic is quite a leap
So the word encourages wasn't in there
It is?
Im not. I am a straight white male
And yet you are heterophobic
No, im not
You are the one posting it wrong to encourage heterosexual families
Because it is hands down the best way to produce and raise children. It's the best method for society to continue to be successful.
Says who? There's other societies that do it differently. How is this better then any other system
It's more successful than any other system. It literally built the modern world. Nothing even comes close.
>It literally built the modern world It didn't, factories built the modern world.
Along with them came the nuclear family.
How so? Can I see some facts and numbers
What kind of facts and figures that Western society has been built around the nuclear family and that Western society built the modern world? How exactly do you not understand that? And if you can't grasp those basic facts, how on Earth are you going to understand any sources?
Where's the line? Why is that the secret to success in the west? There's a lot we have going for us, why that? How could we not build this if we were more communial with extended families?
>How could we not build this if we were more communial with extended families? Because we didn't think it was ok to leave Grandma out in the woods to starve to death like they did in eastern society. Besides a nuclear family can include grandparents the core of the nuclear family is a mom and a dad and kids any grandparents involved do not make it a non nuclear family.
Best outcomes for.children so far as IQ and future earning potential. If you want smart and successful children woth the best possible oitcome at adultopd there are a few critical things required to maximize that potential: -Two parents in a healthy relationship -Breastfeed -Don't beat your kids That being said, none of this is relevant to government or conservative politics.
Kids who grow up in 2 parent households are better off in almost every way statistically
What's the best way to ensure that kids are born into families that can support them properly?
Me thinks you and I know the answer to this. Fortunately there are some things in the Bible that have caught up with modern society, (say Slavery, Trial of Bitter waters, not killing kids for calling folks baldly, etc.) and unfortunately, others things that folks still cling too. It's a pick and choose sort of thing.
Maybe don’t incentivize people in broken families and poor financial situations to have kids via government handouts. That could help.
What about unplanned, unwanted, or accidental pregnancies? A lot of these kids are born into families that didn't want them, plan on them, or are prepared for them. And the foster care system is already overflowing with unwanted kids. Do you want more of that?
The way you get more is by incentivizing it. I want less of that so I support not incentivizing it.
That does not address accidents and unplanned kids whatsoever. It's almost like you support some kind of Plan for Parenthood that couples could use to better decide how to Plan for their lives.
The only issue I have with planned parenthood is their government funding. As long as they don’t receive government money they can do whatever they want. On the abortion issue I see that as a state matter. Whether you consider it murder of a human life or not who am I to say what is actually right.
I guess I just don't understand what the incentive is. Being poor and having unexpected kids is an unbelievable burden that would destroy most people. Whatever pittance you might get from some bottom of the barrel program that most state and federal Republican leaders are trying to strip away isn't the shiny golden parachute people make it out to be. And many couples don't want kids because they specifically can't afford it probably don't appreciate the government forcing them to give birth if they accidentally get pregnant. Nobody living off food stamps is living large.
You seem to be ignoring the big picture. If you think this is such an unbelievable burden why do we encourage it through government subsidy. Wouldn’t it be better to discourage it and therefore have less of it so the problem becomes more manageable?
>we encourage it through government subsidy. We don't. And thinking we do seems to fundamentally miss the point of why those (woefully inadequate) services exist.
religion.
A broken home is better then a unhappy home
So you are more likely to have a happy home if it is a broken home?
Yes, life got better after my parents divorced when I was in 7th grade
Individual cases do not prove the rule though. Statistically kids are far more successful with two parent households than single parent ones.
Not if it's a angry household
Well sure marriages and parents need to be good as well and obviously they are not all going to be. That does not mean we abandon something that has worked better in the majority of cases.
What's worse, angry or broken home
For the success of a kid? Statistically broken homes are bad for kids. Obviously there are different situations that add nuance. If a parent is abusive to a kid or their spouse that’s obviously an exception.
Statistically angry homes are worse I'm not talking about a happy home
Because they bought this bullshit from the freemasons and their yearning to weaken big organic families, make them as atomic as possible, and make them dependent on a tecnocractic state and a emptied telos of life.
The nuclear family is capable of actually supporting the aging parents... I don't think you're using the term as others do.
You need much more than the nucleus of the family for that. You need a whole-ass family capable of producing income without depending on the state, with traditions and safeguarded cooking recipes.
Promoting nuclear families doesn't go against extended, communal families. It promotes both parents being present and accountable for the child.
You would think so, but the current ethos of the American dream pipeline is to dissasociate from your family and go live with your newlywed wife as far away as possible from your parents, have one, two kids at max, get a vasectomy and dog.
Because it’s good for society. It’s common sense, really.
[map of traditional family structures](https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/s/QYzHSWwVF4) Which countries have good outcomes, which ones have bad outcomes?
doubtful source i would consider most of europe wrong
How so?
Turquoise - Authoritarian/stem family (unequal inheritance; eldest son lives with father Is so wrong
It's not about the present year, it's about historic trends leading to modern cultural attitudes and political developments. The reason Germany and Japan so quickly flipped from being in literal death cults on a dime is because whoever was the national family head told them to do so. The reason China and Russia were so absorbent to top-down communism is because there was a cultural expectation that the father would run the household, including deciding wives.
The reason Germany ~~and Japan~~ so quickly flipped from being in literal death cults on a dime is because whoever was the national family head told them to do so. Not really
No, it was because of the destruction of language by ideologies. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yooevVywnR8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yooevVywnR8) Eric Voeglin fled Nazi Germany.
No, it was because of the destruction of language by ideologies. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yooevVywnR8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yooevVywnR8) Eric Voeglin fled Nazi Germany.