"muh nuclear family"

I just finished a thread called "Depressing food related memories from childhood" on Veeky Forums It's full of stories of blatant child abuse from mostly poor parents, many of them drug/alcohol addicts. There's also a couple of cases of middle-class sad stories too but they're milder. This thread got me thinking:

It's generally quite hard to remove kids from their parents unless there is completely concrete evidence of their abuse and even then, the life they face in foster care or the system isn't much better than what they had. This is also why many of them don't notify anyone of their abuse.

This has made me realise how "overrated" and bourgeois the idea of the nuclear family is. Why are we so obsessed with protecting the idea of the family unit, when it only works for the richer half of the population at best? Even in the case of middle and upper class families, I know many people who have been oppressed, abused or simply stunted by their parents and the claustrophobic environment they grew up in.

Why not switch to an alternative model? Tribes in the Amazon raise the children all together and so did the Kibbutzim. The children lived in a "society of their peers", going to school and living in the same quarters, more or less like being in summer camp constantly. They saw their parents in the evenings and were raised by matrons who were rotated from within the ranks of female kibbutzim. Is the nuclear model really the best we have?

Here's the thread, I fucked up the link

But families with two married parents perform better than any other kind.

Shit's measurable yo.

The lower you are on the socio-economic totem pole, the less likely you are to have that.

The real question is how we get poor people to raise their fucking kids right. I have a number of cruel, mean spirited ideas.

Just kill yourself primitivist

>Is the nuclear model really the best we have?

NO.

THE INSTITUTION OF THE FAMILY IS A PERNICIOUS REMNANT FROM POSTNEOLITHIC NONARYAN SOCIETIES WHO HAD IMPLEMENTED ARYAN TECHNOLOGY; THEY IMPLEMENTED ARYAN TECHNOLOGY, SUCH AS AGRICULTURE, THE WHEEL, ETCETERA, WHILST MAINTAINING THEIR CLANNISH TRIBALISTIC WAYS, AND THE FAMILY IS THE ABOMINATION THAT EMERGED FROM THAT ARYAN/NONARYAN COMBINATION.

IN A PERFECT SOCIETY, INDIVIDUALS ARE REARED BY THE STATE.

THE PERFECT SOCIETY IS ONE IN WHICH EVERY CITIZEN IS AN INDIVIDUAL AMONG INDIVIDUALS, AND IN WHICH ALL INDIVIDUALS CONSTITUTE A SOCIAL WHOLE —ONE PEOPLE, ONE CLASS, ONE PERSON.

I grew up around 13 uncles and aunts and 70 first second and third cousins. Quite frankly a lot of shit happens and the extended family unit just like an nuclear family will allow shit to take place if people aren't out of a mindset to stay cohesive.

I moved to a commune a few years ago, shit was terribly abusive and disgusting but people pretended things didn't happen because we literally relied on each other to survive. to make a fuss about anything could mean ruin.

There is no panacea.

Don't post here anymore you dumb fag

I'm not a primitivist at all, in fact I support inventing whole new ways of collective living. We have the capacity/technology to completely re-invent how we build settlements and live. We're stuck in a late 19th century model of city centre high-rise living and sprawling suburbia, with houses that have pretty much the same rooms our grandparents houses did.

Ever heard of the extended family?
No that it's perfect but the Nuclear family has been paraded as some sort of ideal model and as something that has always existed and jerked off by social conservatives.

Because all of the alternative models are garbage that create fucked up children or rely on extremely specific circumstances.

Mom, dad, plus four grandparents, aunts and uncles close at hand is the easiest way to raise children as it requires the least amount of infrastructure (You need a fucking Kibbutzim or an Amazonian tribe to raise your kids like the Kibbutzniks and Amazonians do). It also doesn't lead to your kids being socially awkward loons.

Close knit neighborhoods, like we used to have, plus the nuclear family creates the same effect you're looking for anyways, except you don't all sleep in the same building and have to listen to all of the adults fuck (Which is coincidentally what Gypsies do, raise their children communally and introduce them to sex very early).

>I moved to a commune a few years ago
Tell us more about it. What kind was it? I have the feeling that most communes are doomed to fail since they're mostly populated by whackos and misfits. This is why the kibbutzim are a good example, the kibbutzniks included everything from poor ex-Russian Empire serfs to bourgeois doctors, engineers and artists, who were determined to live. Whether there was abuse and poison in these communes, is something I don't know. From what I've seen so far though, they seem like a beautiful place to grow up in.

in 8 years of being on this weeb invested shithole this is going to be the first time ever that i'm going to filter a trip

Here’s to the crazy ones. The misfits. The rebels. The troublemakers. The round pegs in the square holes.

The ones who see things differently. They’re not fond of rules. And they have no respect for the status quo. You can quote them, disagree with them, report, or filter them.

About the only thing you can’t do is ignore them. Because they change things. They invent. They imagine. They heal. They explore. They create. They inspire. They push the Veeky Forums culture forward.

Maybe they have to be crazy.

How else can you stare at an empty text-box and type up a work of art? Or sit in silence and fabricate a new meme that nobody has seen before? Or elevate an inane discussion to sublime heights?

We provide a mirror for this kind of people. They gives us light.

While some see them as the crazy ones, we see genius. Because the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the WWW, are the ones who do.

B e D i f f e r e n t .


– t. user

The nuclear model is very unrealistic and was a thing of it's time though.

You know, nuclear families and extended families don't preclude one another.

In fact, they complement one another quite nicely.

> except you don't all sleep in the same building and have to listen to all of the adults fuck

I never advocated that. In fact that's literally what happens when you live in a nuclear family house. In the kibbutz the kids live in the Children's House at the centre of the compound (for safety) and are surrounded by the adult houses and workshops/farm buildings etc.

>doesn't lead to your kids being socially awkward loons.
How in god's name, does growing up and living day-by-day in a group of tens or hundreds of your peers, lead to that? The Children's House was literally designed with the opposite result (socially conscious adults) in mind!

Kibbutz were rarely if ever financially viable and weren't meant to last. People were really ducked up when they couldn't be raised by parents and from what I gather people usually left as soon as towns and cities were built.

I'm Jewish religiously but my commune was tropical rainforest full of White American men with a few women, wwoofer girls, some children, drugs, lots of alcohol and STDs, it wasn't great desu

Did you just quote an Apple ad?

>The bourgeois idea of the family unit
>Using spear chuckers in the jungle as a measure of success

This is some cheap but good bait

Village life tends to be like that. Depends, which part of the world you live in though. Anglo and NW European village life seems more centred on the nuclear unit than the village in general.

I grew up in a "nuclear family house" as you would call it and not only did I stop sleeping in the same room as my parents when I was three but I have never heard them fuck.

Nuclear family usually means two parents, x amount of kids. Nothing else.

Extended families include the core parent and kids.

You said "same building", now you're talking about the "same room".

> my commune was tropical rainforest full of White American men with a few women, wwoofer girls, some children, drugs, lots of alcohol and STDs

how do you even come across this kind of stuff? I wouldn't even know where to look

I'm friends with wealthy hippies whose nephew ran it.

huh, fascinating. well, thanks for sharing your experience. genuinely interesting insight.

>Kibbutz were rarely if ever financially viable and weren't meant to last.
That's not at all true, many of them are thriving today and own fuck-huge corporations/factories/farms etc. Funnily enough the ones that stuck the old principles were the more successful ones. It's those that decided to switch from collective living to single housing units and from the children's house to kids living with their parents that took on lots of debt to fuel their construction craze in the '80s who then failed and had to introduce a monetary system.

>but my commune was tropical rainforest full of White American men with a few women, wwoofer girls, some children, drugs, lots of alcohol and STDs, it wasn't great desu

That sounds like a disaster waiting to happen.

The tribes were meant as an alternative example, not a measure of success, dumbass.

Your fellow communists attempted that. Didn't work, even they reversed back to the nuclear family model.

The only alternative to the nuclear family is the clan, and if you are truly a globalist communist as you seen to be, you don't want that.

That's a pretty shitty example and a bad alternative.

>globalist communist
Als ob? I'm not dogmatically anything, I just want to get a discussion going. If I see a model that works better than the current one and there is enough evidence to support it, I will go for it.

My point is that these alternative models seem better and more interesting than the nuclear family.

They thrived and thrive because of subsides and American jewry supporting them and their often more expensive produce.

Also it was a disaster happening.

How is it shitty? Those kids look happy af. Have you read pic-related. That could be another model.

>They thrived and thrive because of subsides and American jewry supporting them and their often more expensive produce.
Maybe some, others have state-of-the-art weapons, plastics, medicine, tech factories and others export produce all over Europe. My local supermarket has shit-tons of produce from Israel.

Why don't we bring extended families back in the picture so that somebody with authority is there to tell the parents that they're being irresponsible shithead? Or at least so that someone will raise the kids if the parents are too busy getting drunk. Is the old folks home lobby that strong?

That's because we subsidised them.

It's because our parents generation can't handle living with their parents. Where I grew up, Asian kids lived with their whole extended family in fuck-huge houses and seemed to have a great time. What's more, because they pooled their resources they got to buy top-tier mansions with huge gardens and many rooms so they were anything but crowded.

>Why not switch to an alternative model?

Because as much as you like to shit on the "nuclear family", statistics show that children raised in those environments do better than those that don't.

Now fuck off back to >

>Everyone who disagrees with me is a fag.
Those statistics are bollocks, because single-parent families, kids raised by grandparents and so-on are usually poor problem families. There's usually a reason why they're not a nuclear family. Of course they'll do worse at life.

That or having redundancy makes for a more reliable design.

>having redundancy makes for a more reliable design.
wat

>one parent
>shit goes south
>children are out of luck
>two parents
>shit goes south
>other parent has some chance of mitigating the damage

This doesn't really get into group parenting models, but I'd worry that there isn't enough individual focus.

>I'd worry that there isn't enough individual focus.
I agree that's really the main drawback I see with these models but it's by design. AFAIK they weren't meant to raise individuals but group-members. Surely seeing your parents every evening would suffice though.

>Those statistics are bollocks....

The only thing that's "bollocks" about those stats, are the faggots, like you, that deny them.

Relax, no-one's taking your mummy away.

Actually, we should outsource parenting. I suppose poor people can't afford it, but really there needs to be people whose sole job is raising kids right and you just pay them to do it.

I suppose we will have robotic nannies taking care of that shit.

we should just get rid of poor people tbbqh

Yes, we need to return to slave-owning clan houses (2bh pham)

I was raised by nannies. It's pretty fun, you get to fuck about all day if they're not strict (they usually don't give a fuck).

...

Why the hatred? He's absolutely right.

>two parents
>shit goes south
>other parent has some chance of mitigating the damage

That's the ideal situation.

The dad could die and in a family that the dad is the sole breadwinner you are doomed.
Accident and only 1 survived any injuries delay income from work and if any disability you can't work anymore.
dead spouses family could take your dead spouses will.
Dad goes abroad to raise money them other and her family are basically a single parent family but with income but you face similar problems single parents deal with.
Often widows face very little support if any.

>It's because our parents generation can't handle living with their parents.

Yes, there was a ton of cultural pressure post-WW II for every kid to go to school and then "get out in the world", in part to drive home sales with rapid suburbanization. The housing boom seems to be over in the West, so it's possible we'll see a return to extended family housing within a decade or so.

It realistically depends on whether the baby boomers are willing to move in with their children, and if millennials/Gen x care enough about their famity to let them. Seeing as how the boomers put their parents in old people's homes, they may have reservations about going into them themselves.

>the Aryans invented wheels
>the Aryans invented agriculture
>the Aryans were fucking collectivist full-time farmers

This is the most ridiculous post I've ever seen on Veeky Forums. That is a major achievement.

>Why not switch to an alternative model?
Because we live in a society with a powerful, far reaching government, and family is probably the single most powerful tool you have to balance your and the government's power. You don't live in the jungle, where the 'government' is the oldest man in the village. If you break apart the nuclear family, you're asking for the government to have absolute and total control over every single part of your life. Kill the family, kill the individual.

The guy is Mexican.

Um evidence? Every kid I know who grew up with 2 parents and 4 grandparents (more or less) did tons better than any nigger without a dad

>and 4 grandparents
If they're living in the same house it's no longer a nuclear family but an extended family

You surely can't be that stupid.

As in 4 close to home.

Explain?

You're using the example of an extended family unit and comparing to a poor single-parent family, in order to somehow make the case that the nuclear family is a successful model. It's like a monkey wrote your post.

I'm talking about in a rich neighborhood bucko. 2 parent kids still did better than single parent kids. Also I wasn't clear about the 4 grandparents thing, I meant just in close proximity not actually I the household

>single parent families are the only alternative to a nuclear family.
I swear it's like I'm talking to an amoeba.

Am I referring to every family type? No I'm talking about nuclear vs single parent. Jesus. Get more mad over something on the Internet why don't you?

But that poster you are talking about didn't allude to single parent households at all.

>the nuclear model is very unrealistic
I'm pointing out how it's better than single parent

No shit sherlock. "Look guys, drinking eating McDonalds is healthier than dying of hunger in the Sahara. So McDonalds is healthy". You've not just moved the goal-posts, you fucking took them home with you.

Nobody said anything about single parents, you're replying to something that was never said. OP is talking about Jew-clans, not single parents

>my commune was tropical rainforest full of White American men with a few women, wwoofer girls, some children, drugs, lots of alcohol and STDs, it wasn't great desu

Story time?

What's a woofer girl?

I am Mexican, Mexican is not a race.

He's probably from Spain or Argentina.

>that feel when chobram armor is from a kibbutz
>that feel when literally an entire century of American agricultural innovation was outdone in a single decade by a single kibbutz that yielded modern hydroponics
>yfw modern special forces come from the kibbutz

Is there anything better than a kibbutz?

>takes anecdotal evidence as an excuse to push his Marxist bullshit
>ignores actual statistics that show the nuclear family is the best for the development of well rounded children
Veeky Forums in a thread

>t. Plato

> Gee I wonder if /hist/ is still full of people tabbing between Veeky Forums and /r/anarchism
> Thread on the front page that uses "bourgeois" as insult

You make me sick

I 100% didn't mean it as an insult. It's an observation. Bourgeois culture exists whether you agree or disagree with it. Indeed Marx and Engels heaped tons of praise on the bourgeois, in the Communist Manifesto.

Bourgeois in this case refers to the middle-class and it's very obvious that the nuclear family is much more a part of that culture (steady 9-5 jobs, wife at home or enough money for a baby-sitter, fishing in the weekends etc.) than working-class culture where even if a family isn't dealing with drug/alcohol issues it has to face irregular work-hours or night-shifts, constant job changes, etc. That's why up until very recently working class families weren't nuclear but included the extended family as well, or even included the whole neighbourhood.

You just pulled some statistics out of your ass, without providing a source or explaining the methodology of the study. If I compare the outcomes of kids growing with a single parent in Compton to kids growing in a nuclear family in Palo Alto, of course I'll get wildly different results. It would be a much better study to look at the results of kids who grew up in the kibbutz and in regular Israeli cities over the same time periods.

From the wiki page:

"However, it has been noted that although "Bruno Bettelheim had predicted that kibbutz education would yield mediocrity: "[kibbutz children] will not be leaders or philosophers, will not achieve anything in science or art." However, it has been noted that although kibbutzim comprise only 5% of the Israeli population, surprisingly large numbers of kibbutzniks become teachers, lawyers, doctors, and political leaders.

In the 1990s, a journalist tracked down the children Bettelheim had interviewed back in the 1960s at "Kibbutz Atid" (now called Kibbutz Ramat Yohanan). The journalist found that the children were highly accomplished in academia, business, music, and the military. "Bettelheim got it totally wrong."