So why does Zig Forums hate the nuclear family (in comparison with extended family clans)?
In my opinion the nuclear family is much more child oriented and is what destroyed familial nepotism in advanced capitalist economies, but everyone here seems to idealize extended families as mutual-aid societies rather than a group of people subservient to a tyrannical patriarch (usually an old fart or the eldest son).
What you said isn't really controversial, and the breakdown of the nuclear family unit is a symbol of declining middle class independence and a growing economic dependence on networking and nepotism to get jobs.
Because the nuclear family is literally disadvantageous where I live and me living alone would be a retarded waste of resources
Family structure changes as the material conditions do. New familial relations, that may or may not resemble previous ones, will emerge in a communist society. I think you're mistaking the left's indifference to this as hatred.
The nuclear family is soooo important. What if these two men, didn't act like men? What could happen if someone just didn't allow them to be themselves
Just think, of what might have happened, if the nuclear family didn't exist, and we were deprived of these two presidential men
It's not that we hate the nuclear family it's just that socialism will bring about the material conditions where it will stop existing all on its own.
This, complaining about the decline of the nuclear faily model is akin to complaining about the decline of photo developer shops.
Yes, and in the wrong way. Due to the economic pressure parents want to make sure that the kids 'turn out right,' which usually means that the little brat must become my literal clone and if it doesn't must be punished. Kids in every other model have more freedom and get wider adult support.
What? No lol. In the extended family model you marry whoever the patriarch preapproved because it will benefit the clan. You can't participate in activities that are outside the norm of the family and if you start getting strange ideas you'll be pressured by -everyone- until you cave down. I've seen it all the time with Indian (and to a lesser extent chinese) families, girls know who they will marry, the men are all awkward because they never talked to women, and they all think about "what will grandpa/my cousins/etc. say!" Rather than what is good for them or even what is logical.
Given that communism will consist of village communities the suburban model of a family will wither away on its own as the daily activity of the community will organically bind them together as a single unit with all the children as siblings, growing up together with the support network of the community's adults.
This. Read Engels
Again, economic pressure. By other models I meant egalitarian ones, variations of communal child rearing, like that in Chatal Höyük and as proposed by Cockshott in his commune chapter in TaNS.
Pre-capitalism, an extended peasant family living on feudal land had husbands and wives both engaged in productive labor. I think black slave families in America also functioned like this. While the social arrangement was often patriarchal, the value of "men's" and "women's" work was equal. The family functioned as a productive unit.
Capitalism shows up and privatizes production (the capitalist class owns the means of production). The family then mutates into the "nuclear" family. The term was coined in the late 40s in a nod to nuclear fission, right? The nuclear reaction pops out nuclei. This allowed modern capitalism to reproduce its labor force on the basis of class. The father works, the mother raises obedient, future workers.
What I'm interested in is why/how capitalism seems to have be eroding this. A lot of families now have two wage earners with both parents (if there even are two parents) engaged in raising children. My guess is that the nuclear family was important to capitalism during a particular period in its development, and it will dispense with it when new forms of family arrangements become more productive.
Except that only ends up reinforcing the family as a cultural institution as the kibbutz experiment shows.
Extended families will go back on style in the first world as living alone get's harded mark my words.
Both parents having less time raising children.
Whats with the left's obsession with raising feral children like in Africa whose parents don't take personal responsibility? Moreover, why should the community take care of them instead of their parents?
Joke: the nuclear family is ideal
Broke: the extended family is ideal
Woke: single motherhood is ideal
Parents have shit to do. In normal human society your extended family shares the "burden" of childcare. So while you are at work your cousin might be watching your kid instead of a random person at daycare.
Also it helps to prevent adult inceldom by properly socializing children.
"They live with their cousins and uncles in the same house and this is awesome!"
"tips on how to share a room with your grandmother"
"10 problems only extendies will understand"
Liberal media headlines somewhere around 2023
Only literal retard hyper-liberals actually *hate* the nuclear family.
I think most here don't actually care though. There's nothing uniquely "traditional" about the nuclear family, and I can see advantages and disadvantages to several different family models. Can't say I endorse tumblr-tier models where there's 15 dads and two moms, but I don't exactly see much wrong with extended family models (as seen in tons of other countries, including Christian ones).
I literally don't care about family structures, and see no reason to district them either.
You wanna live with one partner and two kids? Fine.
You wanna live in a commune of 20 where 8 adults take care of 12 children? Fine.
Wanna shit on your own face while making a handstand? Fine
Why should I care?
Generally only LGBT types truly hate the family in all forms. I don't know why but those seem to be the only people who go out of their way to pronounce how it needs to be dismantled. I think it's mostly due to negative personal experiences.
Because family is the biggest superstructure there is. By molding the family, the bourgeois can perpetuate and reinforce ideologies, thus making revolt harder. What revolution can rise up when people are alienated, fed individualism from childhood and havr no solidarity even with their own family, who they see as burdens?
This is most readily seen in America, where people send their parents to nursing homes and kick out their children as soon as they graduate from high school.
We will soon all be part of the nuclear family.
Nuclear family and muh strong father meme was just an excuse used by cappies to sell more houses.
This.
due to the divorce rate most of american families end up as single mother families by default
there are the weirder "polyamarous" LGBT families that the western media and tumblr loves to focus on, but they're still a tiny minority
Here's my honest counter point, in good faith:
I think it's not hate so much as based on previous experience. My family is incredibly dysfunctional and the role of my father as the sole patriarch plays a great role in how fucked up it is.
There was a lot of narcissism, and my mom was a supreme enabler of his alcoholism.
This makes me not a fan of monogamy, kids, or even relationships in general. You should be able to freely leave a bad situation and kids ought to know that there's better situations to grow up in.
For the kids that had families that were nuclear and functional, i see them and how normal and successful they turned out and just become angry at how normal they turned out. No abuse, no childhood trauma, and they wonder why other people are "losers" and can't hold down jobs, get hooked on drugs, fail out of school, etc. It's like a blind person asking what it's like to see.
So, in a sense, I think it goes both ways. If you parents are good child rearers, the nuclear unit probably isn't so bad.
If your parents are narcs or just plain assholes, honestly, it can be a living hell and it wrecks you for life.
I'm against literally any type of family, we need to advance technology to the point where everyone is freed from the burden of parenthood and all children turn out exactly as designed by the parents, no parenting required.
So essentially the nuclear family is patchwork of millions of petty monarchies, and like monarchies nuclear families are equally as capable of despotic or enlightened rule, a lot of it having to do with material conditions and such.
Right. Which is good for capital. The drive for constant growth would mean it's better for capitalism to bring women into the labor force as wage earners. Not saying that women entering the workforce is therefore bad because capitalism demands it. It just so happens that capitalism demands it.
Anyways I don't hate the nuclear family. That was mine growing up and it was overall a pretty solid and decent experience. Not the experience of some of my friends though. Anyways I see these social relations as historically contingent and shaped by material production.
Hey prole you don't really want to live with all your annoying relatives do you? Be independent and buy a house for you and your spouse. Also a car and other necessities. Relying on other people is weakness.
Hey prole I see you're married but what if you weren't? Then you could have a house all to yourself.
Which is why kids should be able to freely associate once they're past the "I need constant care" age, (which the overwhelming majority of people can handle because instinct takes over) so nobody has to deal with that kind of childhood trauma.