Talk:Nuclear family

Archives
May 2006 June 2006

Congrats

I'd like to congratulate everyone for the current, apparently stable version of the article. I think it is far more balanced and informative than it was a mere month ago! Kudos! DavidBailey 15:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Dismissive of Gay relationships, missing a wider analysis of the term

I feel personally that this article may have been written to be balanced, but I must come from a different point of view and state I don't feel it is. I feel that it dismisses homosexual relationships, emphasizing it only affects a 'minority', and that is not accepted in most countries, but using these two points I feel it puts gay relationships in a negative light even if it wasn't intended. Further I would like to point out a wider discussion about the nuclear family, in that for some Socialists, the nuclear family is by-product of capitalism, and is therefore merely the 'Bourgeois Family’. This ‘family’ in Socialist Feminist thought is the origins of Patriarchy and the systematic oppression of women. We assume as westerners that the nuclear family is the most desirable and normal, but in pre-capitalist society families were in a communal setting and often polygamous. Judeo-Christianity in the west has created the structure of validating sexual intercourse through a ceremony of a man and a woman. However ‘Bourgeois Marriage’ was the contract between two families merging/exchanging capital and assets see dowry system. This article should explore a much wider context, which it currently doesn’t and is based on western assumptions about the natural structure of the family we call the nuclear family. I do not dismiss any good intentions of this article or homophobic intent, there very good articles in wikipedia about homosexuality, however this article isn’t one of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PiousTrent (talk • contribs)

The extensions proposed are excellent, i tried to extend it some time ago, but was prevented by the common understanding of the term, nuclear family. A wider sociological examination is required. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.41.211.99 (talk • contribs)

The article quotes George Murdock's description of NFs: "It contains adults of both sexes, at least two of whom maintain a socially approved sexual relationship..." This permits polygamy, but not monogamous gay relationships(?...) I, personally, consider gay couples with children "nuclear families," and I think most Americans anyway do. userX 23:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Sentence moved from divorce section

Society assumes these families can only be fixed through another marriage, and the single parent status is only temporary and can be overcome.

This statement is unsupported and seems fairly POV to me. It's here until someone can rewrite it to include references. DavidBailey 12:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, upon reading the whole divorce section I think it's not that relevant or well-written to begin with. I guess the question is, what happens to a nuclear family when a divorce happens. If it's no longer a nuclear family by definition, then it isn't "challenging" the nuclear family, it simply ceases to be one. If it still is a nuclear family, then it still isn't challenging the nuclear family, because it still is one. Anyone else think it needs to stay, if so, what does it need to state? DavidBailey 13:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's the whole divorce section. If it needs to be in the article, it needs to written better than this.

The number of single parent families in society is challenging the idea of the nuclear family. Divorce has given rise to different living arrangements for parents and chidren. These post-nuclear families have been described as “broken because the marriage bond has been broken”

DavidBailey 16:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Contemporary Perception

Since this article began some have inserted commentary on the family itself. For instance, this section is more of a commentary on family itself rather than on the nuclear family structure. If there's no objection, I'll move it to the 'Family' article instead. DavidBailey 16:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

This has been moved to the family article. DavidBailey 03:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion from a wiki-newbie: remove parochial reference in the opening paragraph

I'm new here. I cannot figure out how to edit the opening paragraph.

I suggest that the penultimate word in the opening section should be amended from:

"[...] in the nation."

to:

"[...] in that nation."

Pendant 08:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Nuclear family

…In main Article: Is stated[ can be any size, as long as the family can support itself and,.( the continuation is in of course 'the main article. And in the Article describes what in early years is the definition of Kernel or nut. Perhaps I may explain the comparison on this talk page of Nuclear and Kernal and Nut. Property of an existing, Pertaining time, a gathered entity that has a defereniteness's, though is structured to the share of it's course. Meaning a Hole structural balance that has keeping though expresses a reason and notification of a quality. I was typing A Lending though in study the choice was to be a whole which may be in a security in same sense as security, though may be extended within a reachable terming.David George DeLancey (talk) 01:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC) …My apologies on defereniteness's i actually checked it three times and wanted it without the apostrophe and was spelling it deferentness which now I realize was suppose to differentnessDavid George DeLancey (talk) 01:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Incomplete reference

Can someone complete reference 4 (Williams et al.)? It's a good reference, but the citation lacks page number. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sverrebm (talk • contribs) 13:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Partial references

I'm not certain what happened to this text, but the references have been lost and the content is at odds with recent information from the US Census bureau. I'm placing the sections there to encourage editing them back into a form that can be inserted back into the article. Thanks. DavidBailey (talk) 21:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

According to a 1954 issue of McCall's magazine: "[t]he most impressive and the most heartening feature of this change is that men, women, children are achieving it together. They are creating this new and warmer way of life not as women alone or men alone, isolated from one another, but as a family sharing a common experience."

Some sociologists studying families and their formation, attempting to detail the changes in fami

• Increase in sole occupancy dwellings and smaller family sizes
• Average age of marriage being older
• Average number of children decreasing and first birth at later age
• The historical pattern of fertility. From baby boom to baby bust (instability)
• The aging population. The trend towards greater life expectancy.
• Rising divorce rates and people who will never marry.

Henry Ford's "8 hour day, $5 week"

Henry Ford famously paid his workers $5 per 'day', not per week. Straight from ford.com:

http://www.ford.com/about-ford/heritage/milestones/5dollaraday/677-5-dollar-a-day

$5 per week, or $1 per day, was a miserable wage even in Ford's pre-inflationary times. I'm changing "week" to "day". Heian-794 (talk) 17:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Single-parent families

Roughly 75% (or percent) of all children in the United States will spend at least some time in a single-parent household.

What does "some time" mean? What "single-parent household" will they spend time in? Their own home? Their aunt's house? And it's not referenced. I deleted the phrase as vague.