Tuesday, September 13, 2011

Susie wants to fight back for the non-nuclear family

Herald Sun columnist Susie O'Brien is at it again. She has written another piece claiming that we have to let go of the ideal of the nuclear family. A sample:

Let's end this obsession that traditional mum-and-dad parenting is best for children. Single parents and same-sex couples also raise happy, contented kids.

It's time to fight back for the non-nuclear family.

She argues that although the nuclear family is a good way to raise children, so too are homosexual and single parent families. She thinks it is hurtfully judgemental to think of the nuclear family as a better option.

The problem is that what she is really claiming is that fatherless families should be accepted as an equally valid model of family life as those with fathers. And if men and women really came to believe such a thing, family life would rapidly deteriorate.

What's one of the most significant things that hold family life together? A marriage is much more likely to last if the wife believes that the presence of the husband is critical for the well-being of the family. Typically these days that's a belief more likely to be found amongst middle-class and upper middle-class women. Such women are a bit more ambitious for themselves and their children and so they make more of an effort to keep dad involved in family life.

This is the bottom line: if you want stable, prosperous, secure suburbs then you need to keep dad involved in family life. And you keep dad involved by recognising that fathers are critical to the well-being of families. Which then means you cannot advocate the idea that same sex or single parent families are to be thought of as equally valid models of family life.

(Yes, you can recognise the sacrifices made by many single parents and you can recognise that there are children from single parent families who will do well. But what is to be avoided is the idea that we cannot discriminate between a fatherless model of family life and a traditional one. If it were really believed that fatherlessness didn't matter, then the instability that you can already see at the bottom of the social scale would quickly spread more widely through society.)

And the response to Susie O'Brien's column? Overwhelmingly opposed. The readers who commented weren't persuaded to abandon the traditional family as an ideal.

11 comments:

  1. The attack on the family will never cease, so long as the cabal of cabbalists that rules most of the world through puppet governments remains in power. The destruction of the family has always been one of their foremost objectives. Marx & Engels wrote of it in the Communist Manifesto. This is not however the first recorded instance of someone advocating this particular pernicious doctrine. It can be found in Plato's Republic & in many other writings on how to bring about a so-called perfect society. A perfect society will never exist due to original sin. Mankind as a whole tends toward evil rather than good. This certainly doesn't stop men from trying unfortunately, always with disastrous results. These futile attempts will continue until the very last such attempt is made which will culminate in the reign of Antichrist. This is only logical as all of these collectivist schemes are meant to create a type of Mahometan paradise for their followers wherein they may gratify themselves without the restraints imposed by the Law of the Gospel. Of course those who originate the schemes & invariably finish up on top do not believe this. They know as well as we do that the realization of a perfect society free of all inequality & all of the miseries of life in this vale of tears is impossible. For them the schemes serve as a vehicle which greatly assists them in attaining their real goal : unlimited power over their fellow beings. They are like a death adder. The death adder wriggles his tail to tempt his prey to come near enough for him to strike. The schemes are the wriggling tail. They're bait for the masses. The destruction of the family in the west was accomplished by means of this "bait". Laws that restricted, or in Catholic countries categorically forbade divorce were denounced as being cruel. The poor dears will be trapped in a loveless marriage it was said. They should therefore be allowed to divorce. In the beginning it was only for those marriages wherein the woman was constantly beaten, adultery had occurred &c., but now it is because the woman no longer derives pleasure from being married. Thus is the Sacrament of marriage reduced to a pleasure compact, to be dissolved as soon as one of the parties ceases to derive pleasure from it. Divorce is the greatest threat to the family. That is why it has been made quick & easy in nearly all western countries. The only remedy is for the nations to accept the Kingship of Christ. There is no other way. Our Lady of Fatima pray for us.

    ReplyDelete
  2. As regards what I wrote above, the attack on the family &c., a reader of one of my earlier comments had asked that I use paragraphs. I tried when I wrote this one, but for some reason it didn't go through as I wrote it. I'm not good with computers so there's not much I can do about it. Cheers.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The issue I had when I started reading her column is that she's reframing the issue as if non-nuclear family is the status quo and insisting that the burden of proof is on those opposed. Obviously those who insist we dismantle the traditional structure need to justify their reasoning. Reframing in this way (as the ALP do very well, just watch them) is illogical and dishonest.

    ReplyDelete
  4. One of the more prominent aspects of modernism is irrationality and willful dissordering of the senses. This was first seen in Western art as Dada, Surrealism, Cubism, etc., and the works of poets such as Arthur Rimbaud. I think a rational approach to combating modernism is doomed to fail. Not sure how to win the culture wars exactly other than to distance oneself and engage in political theater such as lawsuits (even if rather distasteful to men and women of honor they may be a type of performance art).

    ReplyDelete
  5. Is this anything more pernicious than mathematical confusion? Statistically, two parent households with mother and father are better on average for raising children than the alternative. This doesn't mean they are better in every possible instance. It's fairly obvious why...because one person finds it difficult to raise kids and hold a job while mother and father gives a diversity (!!) that same-sex parents just don't have.

    It's always framed in terms of avoiding some sort of oppression, but how is it oppressive to note that things that are on average better are indeed better on average?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Our Lady of Fatima anonymous wrote:

    As regards what I wrote above, the attack on the family &c., a reader of one of my earlier comments had asked that I use paragraphs. I tried when I wrote this one, but for some reason it didn't go through as I wrote it. I'm not good with computers so there's not much I can do about it.

    ---
    Consider pressing the "preview" button before pressing the "publish your comment" button. While in preview mode, one can see how one's text will appear.

    If something requires correction, press "edit", if not press "publish".

    ReplyDelete
  7. If traditionalists came out against the nuclear family would the leftists then rally in support of it? I wonder how much of what the left supports is motivated by their desire to simply oppose everything and anything traditional?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Jesse 7, the family is at the heart of traditional society. Liberals wish to destroy traditional society and replace it with their own little utopia. Its not that they oppose traditionalist just to tick them off. They oppose traditionalist because traditionalist are the wrench in the work of liberal social constructions. -Ned Wilobane

    ReplyDelete
  9. Liberals love death. They don't want to build anything, they want to destroy, destroy, destroy. They want to feel the thrill of the death-plunge. They want to see the family go up in a spectacular Hollywood explosion. They want to see hordes of rightists and conservatives machine-gunned down in cold blood, to a soundtrack of maniacal laughter.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Typically these days that's a belief more likely to be found amongst middle-class and upper middle-class women. Such women are a bit more ambitious for themselves and their children and so they make more of an effort to keep dad involved in family life.

    I'm taking serious issue with your comment regarding upper-class women. Upper-class women, alongside the lower class women, tend to create family disruptions. Lower class women do this by being feckle and driven by their emotions and mating with minorities. Upper-class women do this by divorce, adultery, promiscuity and the focus, indeed obsession, with independence and careerdom. Some of these upper-class women even end up childless. While middle-class women suffer family breakdown it's safe to say that they are doing their best to preserve the nuclear family compared to lower-class women and their upper-class counterparts.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Susie should create her own society with non-nuclear families and insulate herself from non-liberal worldviews. If she wants to fight for such abominations don't drag the rest of society down the gutter with her. On another point thanks for accelerating the decadence and decline of Western civilization. The more we see "pure liberalism" the stronger the reactions and the more effective the response to it.

    ReplyDelete

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.