The "Traditional Family" Is Officially Dead

[RDS]

Your thoughts?

Move over, Ward and June Cleaver — the archetypal nuclear families with a wife, husband and 2.5 kids is not so normal anymore. A new analysis from the Pew Research Center reveals that less than half of American kids live in families with two heterosexual parents in their first marriage. That's a drastic drop compared to the 1960s, when almost 3 out of 4 kids fit that description.
But that's not where the dramatic shift ends. In fact, 49% of children live with a single parent or one who has since remarried.
How's that for a modern family?

The "Traditional Family" Is Officially Dead - Mic

 

[Paschendale]

The "traditional" family structure isn't so traditional. It's a 20th century invention.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

How can the traditional family be dead if it's still 46% of all families and by far the majority? Are you sure you know what the word dead means?

 

[American]

The "traditional" family structure isn't so traditional. It's a 20th century invention.

Yeah, there were tons of single parent households by choice in the 18th century. :roll:

 

[joG]

The "traditional" family structure isn't so traditional. It's a 20th century invention.

Really? Do you have a link, by any chance?

 

[code1211]

Really? Do you have a link, by any chance?

British maternal mortality in the 19th and early 20th centuries
<snip>
Figure 1 records maternal death rates (or, to be more mathematically correct, ratios) from 1850 until 1970. There was a period of irregular but general steady maternal death rates until about 1900. These then dipped slightly till the First World War and continued so till the late 1930s. Then a sudden precipitous reduction in maternal deaths occurred which could not be due to any natural factors involved in death. It was, in fact, due to the overcoming of maternal infection by chemotherapy and antibiotics.
Figure 1
Annual death rate per 1000 total births from maternal mortality in England and Wales (1850-1970) (Registrar General Reports)


The Four Horsemen of Death in maternal mortality were puerperal pyrexia, haemorrhage, convulsions and illegal abortion. They still are—in various proportions—major killers in most of the world, although their effects are greatly reduced in the UK now.
<snip>

 

[joG]

How can the traditional family be dead if it's still 46% of all families and by far the majority? Are you sure you know what the word dead means?

It isn't dead, but its meaning has changed drastically and less than a third here in Germany do not divorce.

 

[joG]

British maternal mortality in the 19th and early 20th centuries
<snip>
Figure 1 records maternal death rates (or, to be more mathematically correct, ratios) from 1850 until 1970. There was a period of irregular but general steady maternal death rates until about 1900. These then dipped slightly till the First World War and continued so till the late 1930s. Then a sudden precipitous reduction in maternal deaths occurred which could not be due to any natural factors involved in death. It was, in fact, due to the overcoming of maternal infection by chemotherapy and antibiotics.
Figure 1
Annual death rate per 1000 total births from maternal mortality in England and Wales (1850-1970) (Registrar General Reports)


The Four Horsemen of Death in maternal mortality were puerperal pyrexia, haemorrhage, convulsions and illegal abortion. They still are—in various proportions—major killers in most of the world, although their effects are greatly reduced in the UK now.
<snip>

You mean the traditional way requires primitive medicine and poor hygiene?

 

[code1211]

You mean the traditional way requires primitive medicine and poor hygiene?

Not at all.

The "traditional family" depended on having all of the traditional components.

If the mother dies in child birth, then the the traditional family was not there.

According to the Royal Society, Maternal deaths in Child Birth decreased dramatically in about 1930. the "traditional family" rose at that time.

Before that time, assuming that their chart is correct, women were dying at a pretty alarming rate in the process of child birth creating non-traditional families and the plot line for Oliver Twist.

 

[NeverTrump]

Your thoughts?



The "Traditional Family" Is Officially Dead - Mic

I think every child needs two guardians. Whether that be grandparents, parents, aunts and uncles or even two dads or two women taking care of them. Each person can bring something different to the table. It is extremely difficult to raise a child being a single parent based on variety of factors including: income, job hours, location, type of job, lifestyle, age, and pure willingness to do so and not get burnt out etc... All too often it is the mother that is stuck with the baby, then the baby is left with only one point of view. Without an opposite, stronger, or different force another spouse may bring. It may stint childhood development and lead to early childhood resentment of that person. That may be the single sole reason why there is soo much violence and unwillingness to better oneself in the poorest communities.

Though, I don't think grandparents people in their sixties+ can give a child all they need, especially if they aren't living in the modern world. However, I have met some awesome grandparents in my life. Mine would not be well suited in raising me if something happened to my parents. Let's just say they don't even have a computer.

 

[joG]

Not at all.

The "traditional family" depended on having all of the traditional components.

If the mother dies in child birth, then the the traditional family was not there.

According to the Royal Society, Maternal deaths in Child Birth decreased dramatically in about 1930. the "traditional family" rose at that time.

Before that time, assuming that their chart is correct, women were dying at a pretty alarming rate in the process of child birth creating non-traditional families and the plot line for Oliver Twist.

And? What exactly should this tell us? That the traditional family could not exist in traditional times? Or are you trying to tell us that the traditional family was only possible as medicine and hygiene improved?

 

[ttwtt78640]

I would not call the Brady Bunch a non-traditional family. Using "first marriage" as the benchmark, rather than parents (or even a single parent) earning sufficient income to support their minor children, is a better benchmark of the traditional US family, IMHO. Can one really hold it against the parent(s) if they decided to re-marry or have elected not to do so (yet) if they are still able to support their children without gov't assistance?

It may be seen as far easier (less stressful?) to live with Uncle Sugar (and their offer of "safety net" assistance) than with some (freeloading?) adult that requires a taking their "fair share" of your family's income instead of adding to it. The Great Society (safety net) programs may now offer more than that "baby daddy" can (or will) contribute financially and without demanding a seat at the dinner table, taking control of the TV remote or sharing use of the family car.

 

[Declan]

Traditions change. No big deal.

 

[code1211]

And? What exactly should this tell us? That the traditional family could not exist in traditional times? Or are you trying to tell us that the traditional family was only possible as medicine and hygiene improved?

The traditional family can exist only when all of the components are there for it to exist.

I didn't really try to tell you anything. I only showed some relevant data.

 

[Flamethrower]

Your thoughts?



The "Traditional Family" Is Officially Dead - Mic

The traditional nuclear family is dying, not dead.

The Great Society programs of the Mid-1960's were the primary driving forces of this slow death.

 

[1750Texan]

Really? Do you have a link, by any chance?

Why not prove the that the traditional family has a long history in human relationships and societal structures.

The info on the bottom of the graph said Pew research 1960-1980. That is pretty modern right?

 

[Ryan5]

While it's true that many Hispanics, blacks and lower class whites come from single parent households, you have to remember that middle and upper class America is still extremely traditional and solid in this area. So while the lower class portion of American society is full of single parent homes, the middle and upper classes are still going strong in terms of stable marriages and nuclear families. Such is why you get such polarizing views on this topic. Neither side likes the other because people from non-nuclear families naturally resent and are jealous of nuclear families.

 

[lizzie]

Your thoughts?



The "Traditional Family" Is Officially Dead - Mic

My thoughts? It isn't a good thing for society overall. Kids benefit from two-parent households, especially when they have a mother (or father) who wants to stay at home with them in their early formative years. Kids who get what they need early in life, have a better chance of growing up with healthy functioning and coping skills, and those skills and traits get passed on.

 

[Paschendale]

Yeah, there were tons of single parent households by choice in the 18th century. :roll:

No, there were large extended families. A child wasn't wholly under the control of their parents, but rather a whole community of aunts, uncles, cousins, siblings, grandparents, etc. Splitting off into just parents and children in their own little space is mostly a post WW2 invention.

 

[joG]

Why not prove the that the traditional family has a long history in human relationships and societal structures.

The info on the bottom of the graph said Pew research 1960-1980. That is pretty modern right?

I am not sure that I understand your argument.

 

[American]

No, there were large extended families. A child wasn't wholly under the control of their parents, but rather a whole community of aunts, uncles, cousins, siblings, grandparents, etc. Splitting off into just parents and children in their own little space is mostly a post WW2 invention.

Like you would actually know this?

 

[joko104]

The "traditional" family as the OP refers to is not economically possible for most couples and the government has many policies that punish two parent households and rewards broken families monetarily.

 

[Gathomas88]

British maternal mortality in the 19th and early 20th centuries
<snip>
Figure 1 records maternal death rates (or, to be more mathematically correct, ratios) from 1850 until 1970. There was a period of irregular but general steady maternal death rates until about 1900. These then dipped slightly till the First World War and continued so till the late 1930s. Then a sudden precipitous reduction in maternal deaths occurred which could not be due to any natural factors involved in death. It was, in fact, due to the overcoming of maternal infection by chemotherapy and antibiotics.
Figure 1
Annual death rate per 1000 total births from maternal mortality in England and Wales (1850-1970) (Registrar General Reports)


The Four Horsemen of Death in maternal mortality were puerperal pyrexia, haemorrhage, convulsions and illegal abortion. They still are—in various proportions—major killers in most of the world, although their effects are greatly reduced in the UK now.
<snip>

That wouldn't be by "choice."

 

[Slartibartfast]

Yeah, there were tons of single parent households by choice in the 18th century. :roll:

The traditional family historically and still in many parts of the world today is the multi generational family all living together. Including one or more sets of grandparents and quite possibly other relatives.

The nuclear family wasn't so common until last century.

 

[code1211]

That wouldn't be by "choice."

In this Natural Selection World, very few of our options are left to our own, exclusive choice.

As our insulation from the world increases by our wealth, our choices multiply. As that insulation is stripped away, so are the choices.

Now that we are relatively safe in medical procedures, we are free to live longer and make mistakes that natural selection never used to have a hand in.