Why is family being pushed so hard?

The cold, hard truth is that over the last twenty-three years since we established this nation, everything has been sliding downhill... whether you have a family supporting you or you're out there on your own. Something fundamentally needs to be fixed. You have certain people arguing that we need to retreat into tradition and patriarchal structures because, apparently, that’s our only hope for survival. But honestly, has anyone in the history of civilization ever actually looked backward to find a way forward? If that's the logic, why don't we just revert back to the Middle Ages and serfdom? Maybe that would solve all our problems too... I mean, really. We should be moving forward, which means we need to rethink the very structure of the American family so we can actually thrive, rather than having people trapped within four walls dealing with abuse while they pray the Rosary outside... Experience seems to suggest that in 99% of cases, parents completely fail their children through terrible upbringing, mostly because they are themselves deeply broken. Children eventually figure things out for themselves as they navigate these new realities. I had a friend once tell me, "I have to teach my kid how to steal, otherwise they won't make it in this world." But no, that's not how it works; stealing is what the previous generation did. In this current generation, we should be teaching kids to be honest, because after a whole era of crooks, integrity is going to be a premium commodity. And why shouldn't we leave child-rearing to actual professionals who know what they're doing? Is the "family unit" really providing such high-quality education?

Gregory Peterson2 said:The family wasn't the fundamental unit of society. What are you even on about?
In tribal societies, they actually had communal wet nurses who would nurse all the children in the group. It's similar to how lion prides operate. Obviously, biology dictates that a mother and father produce a child—it's not like a dad goes out and finds a sheep! But there was no monogamy, no "family" as a structured unit, and certainly no scenario where mom, dad, and the kids lived in a suburban house while Mom flipped pancakes for breakfast.

I honestly love reading these posts. They really drive home the point that we're absolutely right on this.
If you follow liberalism to its logical conclusion, it drags us straight back to pre-antiquity—back to tribes, polygamy, and polyandry. Personally, I'd much rather stick with actual civilization. 😉

Liberals love to bash Islam by calling it "barbaric" because a man can have four wives, yet now they’re trying to push out the exact same thing through a dozen different modern variations.

ruggedpanther13 said:I honestly love reading these posts. They really drive home the point that we're absolutely right on this.
If you follow liberalism to its logical conclusion, it drags us straight back to pre-antiquity—back to tribes, polygamy, and polyandry. Personally, I'd much rather stick with actual civilization. 😉

Liberals love to bash Islam by calling it "barbaric" because a man can have four wives, yet now they’re trying to push out the exact same thing through a dozen different modern variations.

That just goes to show how much you struggle with reading comprehension.

Look, I’m not sitting here claiming that tribal structures are somehow better or more advanced than the nuclear family. I’m simply laying out the evolution of human society. The family unit hasn't always been the bedrock of our community, so why should we assume it has to stay that way forever?

Gregory Peterson2 said:First, you need to explain to me why you think the "sanctity" of unprotected sex is the only righteous way to make babies, while things like IVF—whether it's donor sperm used in a surrogate or an artificial womb—are somehow wrong.

Cloning isn't really about family or procreation; it's a matter of legal regulation to ensure we don't end up with a dystopian underclass of worker-clones, like you see in those sci-fi movies. Plus, we have to consider the massive benefits regarding genetic diseases and mutations.
Strictly speaking, I don't have anything against cloning itself.

And the Germans were great at regulating things with their laws, too. From engineering the "Aryan race" to the whole eugenics movement targeting the disabled.
What, are you one of those Norwegian black metal fans? Into Black Sabbath? 😉

Gregory Peterson2 said:That just goes to show how much you struggle with reading comprehension.

Look, I’m not sitting here claiming that tribal structures are somehow better or more advanced than the nuclear family. I’m simply laying out the evolution of human society. The family unit hasn't always been the bedrock of our community, so why should we assume it has to stay that way forever?

Think about it: we used to function in an expanded capacity, like a pack or a tribe. As we evolved, that structure proved itself to be the most effective foundation for society. It’s how we ensure the best possible care for our offspring. In that dystopian scenario you're painting, who actually steps up to look after the kids (even if I don't think we're headed for such a bleak future)? Just... houses?

ruggedpanther13 said:I honestly love reading these posts. They really drive home the point that we're absolutely right on this.
If you follow liberalism to its logical conclusion, it drags us straight back to pre-antiquity—back to tribes, polygamy, and polyandry. Personally, I'd much rather stick with actual civilization. 😉

Liberals love to bash Islam by calling it "barbaric" because a man can have four wives, yet now they’re trying to push out the exact same thing through a dozen different modern variations.

But you see, this isn't actually about liberalism, or libertinism, or sexual deviancy, or any of those messy polyandrous arrangements... it's fundamentally an issue of economics. In the context of Islam, a husband had multiple wives because he was the primary holder of property, whereas the wife was treated more like property herself. Nowadays, the family unit acts as the vessel for accumulated wealth meant for inheritance. However, what we are witnessing is the rise of these massive, untouchable clans—the Rothschilds, if you will. Why shouldn't we implement regulations to prevent that? Why can't society legally mandate that they cannot pass down their empires to their children, forcing them instead to return that vast wealth to the state? That is precisely how the Chinese handle things, and their economic trajectory certainly doesn't suggest failure... Massive concentrations of wealth merely serve to amplify political leverage, which inevitably paves the way for an oligarchy. In that light, dismantling the traditional family structure actually benefits the oligarchs, as it is far easier to manipulate isolated individuals than it is to contend with cohesive families and powerful clans... though, naturally, those elites would remain deeply entrenched within their own private networks.

The core objective should be to shift economic power away from the dynastic family unit and onto the individual... allowing one to hold assets and bequeath them to whomever they choose—be it a spouse or even a same-sex partner—while simultaneously preventing the unchecked bloating of wealth within specific lineages that grants them disproportionate political sway. That would solve the problem. In the USA, we basically just rotate between two major political dynasties—it's always a little bit of Bush, then a little bit of Clinton. Obama was really just there for the laughs... Thank God that Marshall didn't leave his entire fortune to his sons, otherwise we'd be perpetually stuck dealing with a revolving door of Harmon and Broz dynasties forever...

Brenda Cook4 said:Think about it: we used to function in an expanded capacity, like a pack or a tribe. As we evolved, that structure proved itself to be the most effective foundation for society. It’s how we ensure the best possible care for our offspring. In that dystopian scenario you're painting, who actually steps up to look after the kids (even if I don't think we're headed for such a bleak future)? Just... houses?

Don't you think it's a bit arrogant to assume we've already stumbled upon the "best" or most "optimal" way to live?
It's like when someone claims democracy is the absolute peak of social organization. Based on what? It's full of holes, just like everything else humanity has tried so far. The way we organize ourselves shifts right along with our consciousness. And believe me, that's a constant evolution.

Gregory Peterson2 said:That just goes to show how much you struggle with reading comprehension.

Look, I’m not sitting here claiming that tribal structures are somehow better or more advanced than the nuclear family. I’m simply laying out the evolution of human society. The family unit hasn't always been the bedrock of our community, so why should we assume it has to stay that way forever?

but you're wrong there—it always has been. Even in those tribes you mentioned, the bond between mother and child is stronger than any connection to other tribe members. It's just genetics and evolution, I guess.

The definition of a nuclear family might shift over time in some ways, but the family unit—whether it's mom and dad and kid, or a single parent, or two moms—has always been the building block of society.

you keep mixing up two things that don't even relate to each other.

Gregory Peterson2 said:First off, you've got a point there. 😁

With technological evolution, we could eventually just pop kids out of a test tube—no parents required. At that stage, the traditional family wouldn't even be necessary. Just high-end tech and a solid incubator, and boom: a world full of clones.
So, following your own logic, why should the family be considered sacred?

Exactly! I just don't get this deep-seated fear the conservative crowd has toward change. It’s been happening since humans first walked the earth. They just end up stalling progress. Change is inevitable—it'll happen sooner or later—but by resisting it, we just waste so much precious time.

Look, I'm not really trying to get bogged down in whether or not I agree with the word "sacred" itself... I just used it because, well, that's how people talk—regimes, systems, ideologies, they all come and go, but certain things just seem to stay constant. And yeah, sure, we might be able to manufacture children, but you still need the male and female biological components, regardless of what kind of high-tech incubator setup gets built later on. Evolution has pretty much stalled, no matter how advanced our gadgets get. We aren't quite living in some Robert Heinlein story yet where the whole concept of family becomes obsolete.

I see we're talking about Metallica here. And that whole dark, heavy metal scene they come from. 😁 What's the issue? Is it because of Stormcrow? 😁
I used to listen to that stuff all the time back in my college days, before I finally grew out of it.

Honestly, I’d probably suggest moving away from the Stormcrow and World of Warcraft vibes. 😁

Go for more Elvis Presley instead.

Anyway, take it easy everyone, catch you later. 🙂

Brenda Cook4 said:Think about it: we used to function in an expanded capacity, like a pack or a tribe. As we evolved, that structure proved itself to be the most effective foundation for society. It’s how we ensure the best possible care for our offspring. In that dystopian scenario you're painting, who actually steps up to look after the kids (even if I don't think we're headed for such a bleak future)? Just... houses?

The State. First off, the government would produce exactly as many people as we need for progress. Planned. Not just enough to allow some wealthy family to keep all the assets gripped in their sweaty palms... just enough so those old fossils have someone to scrape by with while they're fading away, but not so many that everything gets squandered. Then, one has to import foreign laborers from everywhere, from Turkey to Canada, though we can see how that fails, because they bring their own culture along and just siphon the wealth back home to wherever they came from. We need to boost the birth rate, and right now, only the state can pull that off. The Chinese have the opposite problem; they need to scale back because their population is already massive, but even then, they live in this sort of collectivism that has nothing to do with our American families, where everyone actually has their own room and such. They spend their entire lives under the watchful eye of someone—the state, the neighbors—privacy becomes a distant memory. I’m not saying that’s particularly pleasant, but I fail to see how else we could raise the birth rate, and without it, we’re headed for ruin...

A traditional alternative would be for the government to provide subsidies to women who have six or more children, much like what Enver Hoxha did in Albania, but I truly believe it’s wrong for a woman in the 21st century to be having ten or fifteen kids just to serve as a biological machine...

Gregory Peterson2 said:Don't you think it's a bit arrogant to assume we've already stumbled upon the "best" or most "optimal" way to live?
It's like when someone claims democracy is the absolute peak of social organization. Based on what? It's full of holes, just like everything else humanity has tried so far. The way we organize ourselves shifts right along with our consciousness. And believe me, that's a constant evolution.

"Most optimal" so far—though personally, I can't imagine a better setup than being raised by my own mom and dad, especially considering how much psychology shows the clear impact of growing up without a solid family structure—but you still haven't answered my question: in your scenario, who actually steps up to raise the kids?

Things change, and I already told you, I don't find your vision particularly reassuring, given all the red flags pointing toward an upcoming dystopian reality. Honestly, I'm not looking forward to it.

redheron12 said:I honestly feel like these kinds of questions—and this way of looking at family—can only come from people who don't have kids of their own, or perhaps those raised by divorced parents. I truly feel for them.

Or just enthusiasts and their lobbyists. I bet this guy wouldn't mind a family where two dads are busy competing with their junk.😬

The responsibility for raising children should fall to whoever is actually looking after them right now... which, let’s face it, is usually just the Internet. Grandparents nowadays simply can’t keep tabs on what a kid is consuming from dawn till dusk, nor the endless stream of data they’re soaking up, because everything is just sitting there, wide open for the taking. It used to be that in those massive, sprawling American families, older siblings stepped up to do the heavy lifting since parents were out working themselves to the bone just to put food on the table. And sure, those kids worked too. Fast forward to today, and even though we aren't all pulling shifts in coal mines anymore, people are still working themselves ragged and have zero free time... so if we want kids to actually get some guidance, the only way left is for them to spend more time on their devices and basically raise each other. Honestly, it might even be fairer that way, given that any single parent carries their own set of biases that they inevitably pass down to their offspring. What good does that do us, when it's all so primitive? Just think how much stronger America would be if we weren't constantly at each other's throats over things like ancestry, old political divides, or whether someone is a Southerner or a New Yorker.

It strikes me as quite curious that capitalism fails to see it is essentially sawing off the very branch it sits upon. Families are absolutely vital to the engine of capitalism because they fuel this constant, relentless competition—the need to outdo the neighbor, the desperate urge to ensure my kid has the latest iPhone just because every other kid at school has one. If the family unit didn't exist to drive that status-seeking, this whole cycle of competition would grind to a halt, and perhaps society would actually become a bit more equitable...

rowdyhound5 said:The State. First off, the government would produce exactly as many people as we need for progress. Planned. Not just enough to allow some wealthy family to keep all the assets gripped in their sweaty palms... just enough so those old fossils have someone to scrape by with while they're fading away, but not so many that everything gets squandered. Then, one has to import foreign laborers from everywhere, from Turkey to Canada, though we can see how that fails, because they bring their own culture along and just siphon the wealth back home to wherever they came from. We need to boost the birth rate, and right now, only the state can pull that off. The Chinese have the opposite problem; they need to scale back because their population is already massive, but even then, they live in this sort of collectivism that has nothing to do with our American families, where everyone actually has their own room and such. They spend their entire lives under the watchful eye of someone—the state, the neighbors—privacy becomes a distant memory. I’m not saying that’s particularly pleasant, but I fail to see how else we could raise the birth rate, and without it, we’re headed for ruin...

A traditional alternative would be for the government to provide subsidies to women who have six or more children, much like what Enver Hoxha did in Albania, but I truly believe it’s wrong for a woman in the 21st century to be having ten or fifteen kids just to serve as a biological machine...

The government? That sounds like a dark scenario to me—a totalitarian dystopia. "Planned," mechanistic numbers... it's a terrifying thought.

I don't really know how to respond to you; the idea of looking at parents as "old folks" just doesn't sit right with me. It feels so foreign to my way of thinking; I honestly never imagined anyone viewed them that way.

Women aren't just breeding machines anymore; that hasn't been the case in the West for a long time.🤷

Gregory Peterson2 said:Pure fear. They aren't fighting progress; they're terrified they can't keep up with it.
History is full of this. Look at how religious traditionalists in old America rejected the potato because anything growing underground was "demonic." That irrationality caused famines and fueled civil unrest.
It’s always the same irrational dread of the new.

Why is forcing radical change through a liberal lens supposedly better than the stubborn refusal of conservatism?

Do you actually see any societal benefit in dismantling the family unit, or are you just pushing change because it’s trendy?

shadowmaker62 said:They aren't joking. The idea of forcibly dismantling the family as an obsolete social structure isn't anything new, especially in conservative parts of America. Part of this agenda includes recent attempts to redefine marriage, along with the constant mockery and attacks on traditional values. At its core, there is a push to strip children away from parental guidance so they can be molded by people like Quincy to fit specific ideologies. If they succeed, we face a kind of liberal fascism where any thought deviating from the mainstream is cut down at the root. In that light, it's interesting to see how aggressively this liberal faction targets its dissenters (take a look at Mark). And this is just the beginning.

Exactly.
I can't even imagine the chaos waiting for us if child-rearing falls into the hands of an individual or a political party... damn, some geniuses on this forum. 🤦

The OP is leaning hard into that dark, atmospheric Norwegian black metal vibe.
That’s pretty much the whole story.
I reckon I’ll probably stop spinning this stuff once I settle down with a serious girlfriend and finally get my career on track. 😁

hollowtrucker77 said:okay, fine, let's just say we scrap marriage, relationships, sex, and children altogether and just move straight to test tubes and cloning
🙂
in what sense is that actually evolution, and what's the end goal here?
who actually wins? what does humanity even boil down to at that point?
are those things even humans anymore?

how do you people advocating for this even see yourselves fitting into this scenario?
as owners of a herd, as bipedal creatures with serial numbers stamped on them that you can command and exert total control over?
or do you see yourselves as nothing more than glorified nurseries for cloning cells...

what exactly is the plan, and how does it work?

That's already happening; it's been a reality for quite some time now.

The fundamental purpose of any human being is growth, reproduction, and eventually, death. If we look at it purely from a technical standpoint, we are all essentially just units designed for labor and procreation. For the State, we represent its workforce and its reproductive capacity.

The traditional family structure is pushed so heavily because it serves the interests of the government and future generations—though, if you ask me, it probably serves the government even more.

Gregory Peterson2 said:You can count the animal species that are actually monogamous and maintain some semblance of a family unit on one hand. Please, stop trying to lecture me about animals and family being some evolutionary milestone for apes, because frankly, it’s just not true.

Monogamy isn't even the main issue here—I mean, humans are at least a step above monkeys in that regard, fundamentally speaking. The real point is the concept of family and ensuring offspring survival. Even elephants operate under a family structure; they look out for one another and protect the most vulnerable members of the herd.
The whole idea of "family" was designed, in part, to minimize conflict. Honestly, neither humans nor animals particularly enjoy it when someone else moves in on their partner, takes over their territory, or starts burning through resources they worked hard to secure.