CDZ Why is the Traditional/Nuclear family so Vilified these days?

[koshergrl]

We essentially have turned over the raising of children to the state; and we have particularly targeted minority classes to turn their children over to the state...and the state representative/caregiver of the kids...the SCHOOLS.

Schools are no longer about teaching, they haven't been for a long, long time. Schools are where the state indoctrinates and brainwashes children. Indoctrination and education are at polar opposites of the learning scale. And this is why the left has led an organized, cynical attack on the nuclear family. Communist states are not friendly to the concept of *family*. From families, *individiuals* are likely to pop up..and we can't have THAT.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/24/clarke-social-liberalism-the-new-racism/#ixzz3StA67NjF
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

 

[koshergrl]

Through the 1950's and even into the 1960's the Traditional/Nuclear family lifestyle was very common here in the United States. This would be defined as a Single-Income family with or without children where the woman was the homemaker and the man was the breadwinner. These families based their lifestyle on the morals and values that they were taught by their parents and passed on to their children.

This type of lifestyle has slowly eroded over the last half century. Not only has this type of lifestyle become less common, but those people who still engage in it are often Villified. The men are seen as tyranical mysoginists who hate women while the women are presented as brainless twits, automatons, Stepford Wives, and traitors to the great Feminist sisterhood.

Why do you think it is that this lifestyle, which was once the core of American society has now become so hated and villified by such large segments of our society?

Why do you think the nuclear family is the traditional family? The nuclear family, along with all previously 'normal' family structures are reflections on economic conditions and circumstances.

When the majority of folks lived on a farm, the extended family was the norm. Grandparents, uncles and aunts and even siblings of the parents lived communally in order to have enough manpower to run the farm.

The nuclear family, Father Mother and offspring, was the norm when industrialization happened and folks had to move to where the jobs were.

The family structure is in a constant state of flux as agriculture and industry fade as means of making a living.

Tradition? Not always.

I find that different people have some really wild ideas about what constitutes a norm. I remember when I was in Korea and my grandmother died I was told I couldnt come back for her funeral since she was not immediate family. I was confused because my grandma was a part of my immediate family to me.

And so you learned, you do not dictate reality, and you can't force others to include you if they don't want to. Shattering.

 

[koshergrl]

Through the 1950's and even into the 1960's the Traditional/Nuclear family lifestyle was very common here in the United States. This would be defined as a Single-Income family with or without children where the woman was the homemaker and the man was the breadwinner. These families based their lifestyle on the morals and values that they were taught by their parents and passed on to their children.

This type of lifestyle has slowly eroded over the last half century. Not only has this type of lifestyle become less common, but those people who still engage in it are often Villified. The men are seen as tyranical mysoginists who hate women while the women are presented as brainless twits, automatons, Stepford Wives, and traitors to the great Feminist sisterhood.

Why do you think it is that this lifestyle, which was once the core of American society has now become so hated and villified by such large segments of our society?

Morals and values aren't dependent on a certain type of life style.

In addition, the so-called "Nuclear Family" lifestyle was fraught with problems for women including often a lack of respect for the stay-at home woman and the works she had to do if she had children was often valued as "less then". Add to that, if things go south in the relationship a man could divorce her, she would have few resources, no job skills because "homemaker" doesn't work well in the outside job market. The so-called "traditional family" hid a lot of abuses - alcohalism, domestic violence, dependancy. It has it's good points, but the bad points shouldn't be ignored in the yearning for some non-existant golden age.

The nuclear family provided support and protection for women in this country. Women are a lot more likely to be abused now, and the rate of abuse is much, much higher, now.

As is the crime rate, the rate of out of wedlock pregnancy, the incidence of single parent homes, and relative prison populations. And STDs as well.

 

[Asclepias]

Through the 1950's and even into the 1960's the Traditional/Nuclear family lifestyle was very common here in the United States. This would be defined as a Single-Income family with or without children where the woman was the homemaker and the man was the breadwinner. These families based their lifestyle on the morals and values that they were taught by their parents and passed on to their children.

This type of lifestyle has slowly eroded over the last half century. Not only has this type of lifestyle become less common, but those people who still engage in it are often Villified. The men are seen as tyranical mysoginists who hate women while the women are presented as brainless twits, automatons, Stepford Wives, and traitors to the great Feminist sisterhood.

Why do you think it is that this lifestyle, which was once the core of American society has now become so hated and villified by such large segments of our society?

Why do you think the nuclear family is the traditional family? The nuclear family, along with all previously 'normal' family structures are reflections on economic conditions and circumstances.

When the majority of folks lived on a farm, the extended family was the norm. Grandparents, uncles and aunts and even siblings of the parents lived communally in order to have enough manpower to run the farm.

The nuclear family, Father Mother and offspring, was the norm when industrialization happened and folks had to move to where the jobs were.

The family structure is in a constant state of flux as agriculture and industry fade as means of making a living.

Tradition? Not always.

I find that different people have some really wild ideas about what constitutes a norm. I remember when I was in Korea and my grandmother died I was told I couldnt come back for her funeral since she was not immediate family. I was confused because my grandma was a part of my immediate family to me.

And so you learned, you do not dictate reality, and you can't force others to include you if they don't want to. Shattering.

Actually my mom got on the phone to a congressman and they had me home the next day with 2 weeks vacation to boot. I think reality got dictated pretty effectively. Dont you?

 

[Asclepias]

Through the 1950's and even into the 1960's the Traditional/Nuclear family lifestyle was very common here in the United States. This would be defined as a Single-Income family with or without children where the woman was the homemaker and the man was the breadwinner. These families based their lifestyle on the morals and values that they were taught by their parents and passed on to their children.

This type of lifestyle has slowly eroded over the last half century. Not only has this type of lifestyle become less common, but those people who still engage in it are often Villified. The men are seen as tyranical mysoginists who hate women while the women are presented as brainless twits, automatons, Stepford Wives, and traitors to the great Feminist sisterhood.

Why do you think it is that this lifestyle, which was once the core of American society has now become so hated and villified by such large segments of our society?

Morals and values aren't dependent on a certain type of life style.

In addition, the so-called "Nuclear Family" lifestyle was fraught with problems for women including often a lack of respect for the stay-at home woman and the works she had to do if she had children was often valued as "less then". Add to that, if things go south in the relationship a man could divorce her, she would have few resources, no job skills because "homemaker" doesn't work well in the outside job market. The so-called "traditional family" hid a lot of abuses - alcohalism, domestic violence, dependancy. It has it's good points, but the bad points shouldn't be ignored in the yearning for some non-existant golden age.

The nuclear family provided support and protection for women in this country. Women are a lot more likely to be abused now, and the rate of abuse is much, much higher, now.

As is the crime rate, the rate of out of wedlock pregnancy, the incidence of single parent homes, and relative prison populations. And STDs as well.

How do you know women are more likely to be abused now? Back then men could rape their wives and get away with it. If a man rapes a woman now he goes to prison and/or she can leave him and she has job skills and no stigma of being a divorcee.

 

[koshergrl]

Through the 1950's and even into the 1960's the Traditional/Nuclear family lifestyle was very common here in the United States. This would be defined as a Single-Income family with or without children where the woman was the homemaker and the man was the breadwinner. These families based their lifestyle on the morals and values that they were taught by their parents and passed on to their children.

This type of lifestyle has slowly eroded over the last half century. Not only has this type of lifestyle become less common, but those people who still engage in it are often Villified. The men are seen as tyranical mysoginists who hate women while the women are presented as brainless twits, automatons, Stepford Wives, and traitors to the great Feminist sisterhood.

Why do you think it is that this lifestyle, which was once the core of American society has now become so hated and villified by such large segments of our society?

Why do you think the nuclear family is the traditional family? The nuclear family, along with all previously 'normal' family structures are reflections on economic conditions and circumstances.

When the majority of folks lived on a farm, the extended family was the norm. Grandparents, uncles and aunts and even siblings of the parents lived communally in order to have enough manpower to run the farm.

The nuclear family, Father Mother and offspring, was the norm when industrialization happened and folks had to move to where the jobs were.

The family structure is in a constant state of flux as agriculture and industry fade as means of making a living.

Tradition? Not always.

I find that different people have some really wild ideas about what constitutes a norm. I remember when I was in Korea and my grandmother died I was told I couldnt come back for her funeral since she was not immediate family. I was confused because my grandma was a part of my immediate family to me.

And so you learned, you do not dictate reality, and you can't force others to include you if they don't want to. Shattering.

Actually my mom got on the phone to a congressman and they had me home the next day with 2 weeks vacation to boot. I think reality got dictated pretty effectively. Dont you?

Every attempt liberals have made to *help* blacks has worsened the black lifestyle...first and foremost, their attack and dismantling of traditional family structure. "More black children grow up without a stable father in their lives as black men have been estranged from their children and emasculated by welfare policies."

More blacks are living in poverty now, and more are unemployed and in jail.

The nuclear family has always been at the very root of every single successful society since the beginning of man's time on earth. To destroy it is to destroy us.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/24/clarke-social-liberalism-the-new-racism/#ixzz3StBjmWjo

 

[mudwhistle]

Through the 1950's and even into the 1960's the Traditional/Nuclear family lifestyle was very common here in the United States. This would be defined as a Single-Income family with or without children where the woman was the homemaker and the man was the breadwinner. These families based their lifestyle on the morals and values that they were taught by their parents and passed on to their children.

This type of lifestyle has slowly eroded over the last half century. Not only has this type of lifestyle become less common, but those people who still engage in it are often Villified. The men are seen as tyranical mysoginists who hate women while the women are presented as brainless twits, automatons, Stepford Wives, and traitors to the great Feminist sisterhood.

Why do you think it is that this lifestyle, which was once the core of American society has now become so hated and villified by such large segments of our society?

The cost of living went up for one. The only single income families the left admires now is single black women with 7 kids from 6 different fathers.

 

[koshergrl]

Through the 1950's and even into the 1960's the Traditional/Nuclear family lifestyle was very common here in the United States. This would be defined as a Single-Income family with or without children where the woman was the homemaker and the man was the breadwinner. These families based their lifestyle on the morals and values that they were taught by their parents and passed on to their children.

This type of lifestyle has slowly eroded over the last half century. Not only has this type of lifestyle become less common, but those people who still engage in it are often Villified. The men are seen as tyranical mysoginists who hate women while the women are presented as brainless twits, automatons, Stepford Wives, and traitors to the great Feminist sisterhood.

Why do you think it is that this lifestyle, which was once the core of American society has now become so hated and villified by such large segments of our society?

Morals and values aren't dependent on a certain type of life style.

In addition, the so-called "Nuclear Family" lifestyle was fraught with problems for women including often a lack of respect for the stay-at home woman and the works she had to do if she had children was often valued as "less then". Add to that, if things go south in the relationship a man could divorce her, she would have few resources, no job skills because "homemaker" doesn't work well in the outside job market. The so-called "traditional family" hid a lot of abuses - alcohalism, domestic violence, dependancy. It has it's good points, but the bad points shouldn't be ignored in the yearning for some non-existant golden age.

The nuclear family provided support and protection for women in this country. Women are a lot more likely to be abused now, and the rate of abuse is much, much higher, now.

As is the crime rate, the rate of out of wedlock pregnancy, the incidence of single parent homes, and relative prison populations. And STDs as well.

How do you know women are more likely to be abused now? Back then men could rape their wives and get away with it. If a man rapes a woman now he goes to prison and/or she can leave him and she has job skills and no stigma of being a divorcee.

You will undoubtedly be surprised, XXXXXXXXXXXX when I tell you that rape sentences today are much, much lighter than they were back when our society actually valued women.

Mod Edit - this is the CDZ Zone - no flaming, putting down or insulting other posters please.

 

[Asclepias]

Through the 1950's and even into the 1960's the Traditional/Nuclear family lifestyle was very common here in the United States. This would be defined as a Single-Income family with or without children where the woman was the homemaker and the man was the breadwinner. These families based their lifestyle on the morals and values that they were taught by their parents and passed on to their children.

This type of lifestyle has slowly eroded over the last half century. Not only has this type of lifestyle become less common, but those people who still engage in it are often Villified. The men are seen as tyranical mysoginists who hate women while the women are presented as brainless twits, automatons, Stepford Wives, and traitors to the great Feminist sisterhood.

Why do you think it is that this lifestyle, which was once the core of American society has now become so hated and villified by such large segments of our society?

Why do you think the nuclear family is the traditional family? The nuclear family, along with all previously 'normal' family structures are reflections on economic conditions and circumstances.

When the majority of folks lived on a farm, the extended family was the norm. Grandparents, uncles and aunts and even siblings of the parents lived communally in order to have enough manpower to run the farm.

The nuclear family, Father Mother and offspring, was the norm when industrialization happened and folks had to move to where the jobs were.

The family structure is in a constant state of flux as agriculture and industry fade as means of making a living.

Tradition? Not always.

I find that different people have some really wild ideas about what constitutes a norm. I remember when I was in Korea and my grandmother died I was told I couldnt come back for her funeral since she was not immediate family. I was confused because my grandma was a part of my immediate family to me.

And so you learned, you do not dictate reality, and you can't force others to include you if they don't want to. Shattering.

Actually my mom got on the phone to a congressman and they had me home the next day with 2 weeks vacation to boot. I think reality got dictated pretty effectively. Dont you?

Every attempt liberals have made to *help* blacks has worsened the black lifestyle...first and foremost, their attack and dismantling of traditional family structure. "More black children grow up without a stable father in their lives as black men have been estranged from their children and emasculated by welfare policies."

More blacks are living in poverty now, and more are unemployed and in jail.

The nuclear family has always been at the very root of every single successful society since the beginning of man's time on earth. To destroy it is to destroy us.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/24/clarke-social-liberalism-the-new-racism/#ixzz3StBjmWjo

You are talking about racism not welfare. Whites have always been the largest demographic on welfare and their families were not torn apart by welfare policies. If the nuclear family has always been at the root of successful societies why do some white people (like you) pretend slavery and jim crow has no effect on todays Black community? BTW you didnt answer if you thought I was able to dictate reality or not.

 

[Coyote]

Through the 1950's and even into the 1960's the Traditional/Nuclear family lifestyle was very common here in the United States. This would be defined as a Single-Income family with or without children where the woman was the homemaker and the man was the breadwinner. These families based their lifestyle on the morals and values that they were taught by their parents and passed on to their children.

This type of lifestyle has slowly eroded over the last half century. Not only has this type of lifestyle become less common, but those people who still engage in it are often Villified. The men are seen as tyranical mysoginists who hate women while the women are presented as brainless twits, automatons, Stepford Wives, and traitors to the great Feminist sisterhood.

Why do you think it is that this lifestyle, which was once the core of American society has now become so hated and villified by such large segments of our society?

Morals and values aren't dependent on a certain type of life style.

In addition, the so-called "Nuclear Family" lifestyle was fraught with problems for women including often a lack of respect for the stay-at home woman and the works she had to do if she had children was often valued as "less then". Add to that, if things go south in the relationship a man could divorce her, she would have few resources, no job skills because "homemaker" doesn't work well in the outside job market. The so-called "traditional family" hid a lot of abuses - alcohalism, domestic violence, dependancy. It has it's good points, but the bad points shouldn't be ignored in the yearning for some non-existant golden age.

The nuclear family provided support and protection for women in this country. Women are a lot more likely to be abused now, and the rate of abuse is much, much higher, now.

As is the crime rate, the rate of out of wedlock pregnancy, the incidence of single parent homes, and relative prison populations. And STDs as well.

I disagree.

Is the rate of abuse truly much higher or - have the laws about it changed and the reporting of it become more open? Abuse used to be hidden and shameful and usually considered the woman's fault - if only she were a better wife, a better mother, hadn't pissed him off.... Today there are many more avenues of help that did not exist in the 50's and 60's. Today, a woman has more means to escape the situation then she ever did before.

What specific protection and support did the nuclear family provide women?

Prison populations have more to do with our laws and mandatory sentancing for minor offenses then it does with the "nuclear family". Consider the relative prison populations in European countries which have also seen similar increases in one-parent families and unmarried partners.

 

[koshergrl]

Why do you think the nuclear family is the traditional family? The nuclear family, along with all previously 'normal' family structures are reflections on economic conditions and circumstances.

When the majority of folks lived on a farm, the extended family was the norm. Grandparents, uncles and aunts and even siblings of the parents lived communally in order to have enough manpower to run the farm.

The nuclear family, Father Mother and offspring, was the norm when industrialization happened and folks had to move to where the jobs were.

The family structure is in a constant state of flux as agriculture and industry fade as means of making a living.

Tradition? Not always.

I find that different people have some really wild ideas about what constitutes a norm. I remember when I was in Korea and my grandmother died I was told I couldnt come back for her funeral since she was not immediate family. I was confused because my grandma was a part of my immediate family to me.

And so you learned, you do not dictate reality, and you can't force others to include you if they don't want to. Shattering.

Actually my mom got on the phone to a congressman and they had me home the next day with 2 weeks vacation to boot. I think reality got dictated pretty effectively. Dont you?

Every attempt liberals have made to *help* blacks has worsened the black lifestyle...first and foremost, their attack and dismantling of traditional family structure. "More black children grow up without a stable father in their lives as black men have been estranged from their children and emasculated by welfare policies."

More blacks are living in poverty now, and more are unemployed and in jail.

The nuclear family has always been at the very root of every single successful society since the beginning of man's time on earth. To destroy it is to destroy us.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/24/clarke-social-liberalism-the-new-racism/#ixzz3StBjmWjo

You are talking about racism not welfare. Whites have always been the largest demographic on welfare and their families were not torn apart by welfare policies. If the nuclear family has always been at the root of successful societies why do some white people (like you) pretend slavery and jim crow has no effect on todays Black community? BTW you didnt answer if you thought I was able to dictate reality or not.

Welfare is the frontman for racism. It always has been.

 

[Disir]

Through the 1950's and even into the 1960's the Traditional/Nuclear family lifestyle was very common here in the United States. This would be defined as a Single-Income family with or without children where the woman was the homemaker and the man was the breadwinner. These families based their lifestyle on the morals and values that they were taught by their parents and passed on to their children.

This type of lifestyle has slowly eroded over the last half century. Not only has this type of lifestyle become less common, but those people who still engage in it are often Villified. The men are seen as tyranical mysoginists who hate women while the women are presented as brainless twits, automatons, Stepford Wives, and traitors to the great Feminist sisterhood.

Why do you think it is that this lifestyle, which was once the core of American society has now become so hated and villified by such large segments of our society?

Morals and values aren't dependent on a certain type of life style.

In addition, the so-called "Nuclear Family" lifestyle was fraught with problems for women including often a lack of respect for the stay-at home woman and the works she had to do if she had children was often valued as "less then". Add to that, if things go south in the relationship a man could divorce her, she would have few resources, no job skills because "homemaker" doesn't work well in the outside job market. The so-called "traditional family" hid a lot of abuses - alcohalism, domestic violence, dependancy. It has it's good points, but the bad points shouldn't be ignored in the yearning for some non-existant golden age.

The nuclear family provided support and protection for women in this country. Women are a lot more likely to be abused now, and the rate of abuse is much, much higher, now.

As is the crime rate, the rate of out of wedlock pregnancy, the incidence of single parent homes, and relative prison populations. And STDs as well.

Data?

 

[koshergrl]

Through the 1950's and even into the 1960's the Traditional/Nuclear family lifestyle was very common here in the United States. This would be defined as a Single-Income family with or without children where the woman was the homemaker and the man was the breadwinner. These families based their lifestyle on the morals and values that they were taught by their parents and passed on to their children.

This type of lifestyle has slowly eroded over the last half century. Not only has this type of lifestyle become less common, but those people who still engage in it are often Villified. The men are seen as tyranical mysoginists who hate women while the women are presented as brainless twits, automatons, Stepford Wives, and traitors to the great Feminist sisterhood.

Why do you think it is that this lifestyle, which was once the core of American society has now become so hated and villified by such large segments of our society?

Morals and values aren't dependent on a certain type of life style.

In addition, the so-called "Nuclear Family" lifestyle was fraught with problems for women including often a lack of respect for the stay-at home woman and the works she had to do if she had children was often valued as "less then". Add to that, if things go south in the relationship a man could divorce her, she would have few resources, no job skills because "homemaker" doesn't work well in the outside job market. The so-called "traditional family" hid a lot of abuses - alcohalism, domestic violence, dependancy. It has it's good points, but the bad points shouldn't be ignored in the yearning for some non-existant golden age.

The nuclear family provided support and protection for women in this country. Women are a lot more likely to be abused now, and the rate of abuse is much, much higher, now.

As is the crime rate, the rate of out of wedlock pregnancy, the incidence of single parent homes, and relative prison populations. And STDs as well.

I disagree.

Is the rate of abuse truly much higher or - have the laws about it changed and the reporting of it become more open? Abuse used to be hidden and shameful and usually considered the woman's fault - if only she were a better wife, a better mother, hadn't pissed him off.... Today there are many more avenues of help that did not exist in the 50's and 60's. Today, a woman has more means to escape the situation then she ever did before.

What specific protection and support did the nuclear family provide women?

Prison populations have more to do with our laws and mandatory sentancing for minor offenses then it does with the "nuclear family". Consider the relative prison populations in European countries which have also seen similar increases in one-parent families and unmarried partners.

Wrong. On all counts.

More women are abused, and killed, today than have ever been killed in the past. Your claim that women in traditional marriages are at higher risk for abuse is patently untrue. Women are MUCH more likely to be killed by boyfriends and ex boyfriends than they are likely to be killed/attacked by their husbands. What's more, their children are more likely to be killed if they are raising them outside the protection of a traditional marriage, as well.

"The number of American troops killed in Afghanistan and Iraq between 2001 and 2012 was 6,488. The number of American women who were murdered by current or ex male partners during that time was 11,766. That's nearly double the amount of casualties lost during war."

" 1,509
"The number of women murdered by men they knew in 2011. Of the 1,509 women, 926 were killed by an intimate parter and 264 of those were killed by an intimate partner during an argument."

30 Shocking Domestic Violence Statistics That Remind Us It s An Epidemic

 

[Asclepias]

Through the 1950's and even into the 1960's the Traditional/Nuclear family lifestyle was very common here in the United States. This would be defined as a Single-Income family with or without children where the woman was the homemaker and the man was the breadwinner. These families based their lifestyle on the morals and values that they were taught by their parents and passed on to their children.

This type of lifestyle has slowly eroded over the last half century. Not only has this type of lifestyle become less common, but those people who still engage in it are often Villified. The men are seen as tyranical mysoginists who hate women while the women are presented as brainless twits, automatons, Stepford Wives, and traitors to the great Feminist sisterhood.

Why do you think it is that this lifestyle, which was once the core of American society has now become so hated and villified by such large segments of our society?

Morals and values aren't dependent on a certain type of life style.

In addition, the so-called "Nuclear Family" lifestyle was fraught with problems for women including often a lack of respect for the stay-at home woman and the works she had to do if she had children was often valued as "less then". Add to that, if things go south in the relationship a man could divorce her, she would have few resources, no job skills because "homemaker" doesn't work well in the outside job market. The so-called "traditional family" hid a lot of abuses - alcohalism, domestic violence, dependancy. It has it's good points, but the bad points shouldn't be ignored in the yearning for some non-existant golden age.

The nuclear family provided support and protection for women in this country. Women are a lot more likely to be abused now, and the rate of abuse is much, much higher, now.

As is the crime rate, the rate of out of wedlock pregnancy, the incidence of single parent homes, and relative prison populations. And STDs as well.

How do you know women are more likely to be abused now? Back then men could rape their wives and get away with it. If a man rapes a woman now he goes to prison and/or she can leave him and she has job skills and no stigma of being a divorcee.

You will undoubtedly be surprised, XXXXXXXXXXXX when I tell you that rape sentences today are much, much lighter than they were back when our society actually valued women.

Mod Edit - this is the CDZ Zone - no flaming, putting down or insulting other posters please.

I'm not surprised you are wrong....once again. It was legal for men to rape their wives in the 1950s. incest and physical abuse were not taken seriously either. It was swept under the rug by white males and society at large as too shameful to reveal. Most workers worked 10 hours a day for six days a week. Romanticizing that time period is amusing but it would be horribly wrong.

Marital rape United States law - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

"The legal history of marital rape laws in the United States is a long and complex one, that spans over several decades. The criminalization of marital rape in the United States started in the mid-1970s and by 1993 marital rape became a crime in all 50 states,"

 

[Asclepias]

Through the 1950's and even into the 1960's the Traditional/Nuclear family lifestyle was very common here in the United States. This would be defined as a Single-Income family with or without children where the woman was the homemaker and the man was the breadwinner. These families based their lifestyle on the morals and values that they were taught by their parents and passed on to their children.

This type of lifestyle has slowly eroded over the last half century. Not only has this type of lifestyle become less common, but those people who still engage in it are often Villified. The men are seen as tyranical mysoginists who hate women while the women are presented as brainless twits, automatons, Stepford Wives, and traitors to the great Feminist sisterhood.

Why do you think it is that this lifestyle, which was once the core of American society has now become so hated and villified by such large segments of our society?

Morals and values aren't dependent on a certain type of life style.

In addition, the so-called "Nuclear Family" lifestyle was fraught with problems for women including often a lack of respect for the stay-at home woman and the works she had to do if she had children was often valued as "less then". Add to that, if things go south in the relationship a man could divorce her, she would have few resources, no job skills because "homemaker" doesn't work well in the outside job market. The so-called "traditional family" hid a lot of abuses - alcohalism, domestic violence, dependancy. It has it's good points, but the bad points shouldn't be ignored in the yearning for some non-existant golden age.

The nuclear family provided support and protection for women in this country. Women are a lot more likely to be abused now, and the rate of abuse is much, much higher, now.

As is the crime rate, the rate of out of wedlock pregnancy, the incidence of single parent homes, and relative prison populations. And STDs as well.

I disagree.

Is the rate of abuse truly much higher or - have the laws about it changed and the reporting of it become more open? Abuse used to be hidden and shameful and usually considered the woman's fault - if only she were a better wife, a better mother, hadn't pissed him off.... Today there are many more avenues of help that did not exist in the 50's and 60's. Today, a woman has more means to escape the situation then she ever did before.

What specific protection and support did the nuclear family provide women?

Prison populations have more to do with our laws and mandatory sentancing for minor offenses then it does with the "nuclear family". Consider the relative prison populations in European countries which have also seen similar increases in one-parent families and unmarried partners.

Wrong. On all counts.

More women are abused, and killed, today than have ever been killed in the past. Your claim that women in traditional marriages are at higher risk for abuse is patently untrue. Women are MUCH more likely to be killed by boyfriends and ex boyfriends than they are likely to be killed/attacked by their husbands. What's more, their children are more likely to be killed if they are raising them outside the protection of a traditional marriage, as well.

"The number of American troops killed in Afghanistan and Iraq between 2001 and 2012 was 6,488. The number of American women who were murdered by current or ex male partners during that time was 11,766. That's nearly double the amount of casualties lost during war."

" 1,509
"The number of women murdered by men they knew in 2011. Of the 1,509 women, 926 were killed by an intimate parter and 264 of those were killed by an intimate partner during an argument."

30 Shocking Domestic Violence Statistics That Remind Us It s An Epidemic

How many of those women were murdered because of men that couldnt legally oppress them anymore and decided no one would have them if they couldnt?

How many of those domestic abuse cases went unreported during the 50s due to social stigma and the cops ignoring them?

 

[koshergrl]

Through the 1950's and even into the 1960's the Traditional/Nuclear family lifestyle was very common here in the United States. This would be defined as a Single-Income family with or without children where the woman was the homemaker and the man was the breadwinner. These families based their lifestyle on the morals and values that they were taught by their parents and passed on to their children.

This type of lifestyle has slowly eroded over the last half century. Not only has this type of lifestyle become less common, but those people who still engage in it are often Villified. The men are seen as tyranical mysoginists who hate women while the women are presented as brainless twits, automatons, Stepford Wives, and traitors to the great Feminist sisterhood.

Why do you think it is that this lifestyle, which was once the core of American society has now become so hated and villified by such large segments of our society?

Morals and values aren't dependent on a certain type of life style.

In addition, the so-called "Nuclear Family" lifestyle was fraught with problems for women including often a lack of respect for the stay-at home woman and the works she had to do if she had children was often valued as "less then". Add to that, if things go south in the relationship a man could divorce her, she would have few resources, no job skills because "homemaker" doesn't work well in the outside job market. The so-called "traditional family" hid a lot of abuses - alcohalism, domestic violence, dependancy. It has it's good points, but the bad points shouldn't be ignored in the yearning for some non-existant golden age.

The nuclear family provided support and protection for women in this country. Women are a lot more likely to be abused now, and the rate of abuse is much, much higher, now.

As is the crime rate, the rate of out of wedlock pregnancy, the incidence of single parent homes, and relative prison populations. And STDs as well.

How do you know women are more likely to be abused now? Back then men could rape their wives and get away with it. If a man rapes a woman now he goes to prison and/or she can leave him and she has job skills and no stigma of being a divorcee.

You will undoubtedly be surprised, XXXXXXXXXXXX when I tell you that rape sentences today are much, much lighter than they were back when our society actually valued women.

Mod Edit - this is the CDZ Zone - no flaming, putting down or insulting other posters please.

I'm not surprised you are wrong....once again. It was legal for men to rape their wives in the 1950s. incest and physical abuse were not taken seriously either. It was swept under the rug by white males and society at large as too shameful to reveal. Most workers worked 10 hours a day for six days a week. Romanticizing that time period is amusing but it would be horribly wrong.

Marital rape United States law - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

"The legal history of marital rape laws in the United States is a long and complex one, that spans over several decades. The criminalization of marital rape in the United States started in the mid-1970s and by 1993 marital rape became a crime in all 50 states,"

So your argument is that the traditional family has been vilified because of marital rape?

Nobody has said it never happened. I'm arguing to the actual OP here, and the truth is, despite the fact that you say marital rape had this huge (but apparently undocumented) incidence prior to the decimation of the nuclear family, the left has waged an all out war on the nuclear family.

As you are here. Your argument is that the nuclear family causes marital rape. Well, okay. But the rate of women being raped is STILL higher now. Violence against women is higher..the rate of DEATH is higher. And it's NOT because "gosh people just never reported it back then". It really is higher. There are more criminals, there's more poverty. Everybody knows the source of this...every study that has ever been conducted shows us that single parent household and non-traditional households are more likely to be poverty stricken, wracked by substance and other abuse issues, undereducated, criminal, and uneducated.

I mean, that's the long and short of it. Kids in non traditional households don't do as well.

The question here isn't whether or not women occasionally suffered in silence in the 50s...it's why are we attacking the nuclear family? Why are you attacking the nuclear family? Why are you trying to pretend that women in marriages are *more likely* to be raped than they are if they bounce from one man to another? And where's the data that supports that, if that's your claim?

 

[koshergrl]

Through the 1950's and even into the 1960's the Traditional/Nuclear family lifestyle was very common here in the United States. This would be defined as a Single-Income family with or without children where the woman was the homemaker and the man was the breadwinner. These families based their lifestyle on the morals and values that they were taught by their parents and passed on to their children.

This type of lifestyle has slowly eroded over the last half century. Not only has this type of lifestyle become less common, but those people who still engage in it are often Villified. The men are seen as tyranical mysoginists who hate women while the women are presented as brainless twits, automatons, Stepford Wives, and traitors to the great Feminist sisterhood.

Why do you think it is that this lifestyle, which was once the core of American society has now become so hated and villified by such large segments of our society?

Morals and values aren't dependent on a certain type of life style.

In addition, the so-called "Nuclear Family" lifestyle was fraught with problems for women including often a lack of respect for the stay-at home woman and the works she had to do if she had children was often valued as "less then". Add to that, if things go south in the relationship a man could divorce her, she would have few resources, no job skills because "homemaker" doesn't work well in the outside job market. The so-called "traditional family" hid a lot of abuses - alcohalism, domestic violence, dependancy. It has it's good points, but the bad points shouldn't be ignored in the yearning for some non-existant golden age.

The nuclear family provided support and protection for women in this country. Women are a lot more likely to be abused now, and the rate of abuse is much, much higher, now.

As is the crime rate, the rate of out of wedlock pregnancy, the incidence of single parent homes, and relative prison populations. And STDs as well.

I disagree.

Is the rate of abuse truly much higher or - have the laws about it changed and the reporting of it become more open? Abuse used to be hidden and shameful and usually considered the woman's fault - if only she were a better wife, a better mother, hadn't pissed him off.... Today there are many more avenues of help that did not exist in the 50's and 60's. Today, a woman has more means to escape the situation then she ever did before.

What specific protection and support did the nuclear family provide women?

Prison populations have more to do with our laws and mandatory sentancing for minor offenses then it does with the "nuclear family". Consider the relative prison populations in European countries which have also seen similar increases in one-parent families and unmarried partners.

Wrong. On all counts.

More women are abused, and killed, today than have ever been killed in the past. Your claim that women in traditional marriages are at higher risk for abuse is patently untrue. Women are MUCH more likely to be killed by boyfriends and ex boyfriends than they are likely to be killed/attacked by their husbands. What's more, their children are more likely to be killed if they are raising them outside the protection of a traditional marriage, as well.

"The number of American troops killed in Afghanistan and Iraq between 2001 and 2012 was 6,488. The number of American women who were murdered by current or ex male partners during that time was 11,766. That's nearly double the amount of casualties lost during war."

" 1,509
"The number of women murdered by men they knew in 2011. Of the 1,509 women, 926 were killed by an intimate parter and 264 of those were killed by an intimate partner during an argument."

30 Shocking Domestic Violence Statistics That Remind Us It s An Epidemic

How many of those women were murdered because of men that couldnt legally oppress them anymore and decided no one would have them if they couldnt?

How many of those domestic abuse cases went unreported during the 50s due to social stigma and the cops ignoring them?

A lot fewer than are murdered today by crazed boyfriends who don't want them to have their babies.

 

[Asclepias]

Morals and values aren't dependent on a certain type of life style.

In addition, the so-called "Nuclear Family" lifestyle was fraught with problems for women including often a lack of respect for the stay-at home woman and the works she had to do if she had children was often valued as "less then". Add to that, if things go south in the relationship a man could divorce her, she would have few resources, no job skills because "homemaker" doesn't work well in the outside job market. The so-called "traditional family" hid a lot of abuses - alcohalism, domestic violence, dependancy. It has it's good points, but the bad points shouldn't be ignored in the yearning for some non-existant golden age.

The nuclear family provided support and protection for women in this country. Women are a lot more likely to be abused now, and the rate of abuse is much, much higher, now.

As is the crime rate, the rate of out of wedlock pregnancy, the incidence of single parent homes, and relative prison populations. And STDs as well.

How do you know women are more likely to be abused now? Back then men could rape their wives and get away with it. If a man rapes a woman now he goes to prison and/or she can leave him and she has job skills and no stigma of being a divorcee.

You will undoubtedly be surprised, XXXXXXXXXXXX when I tell you that rape sentences today are much, much lighter than they were back when our society actually valued women.

Mod Edit - this is the CDZ Zone - no flaming, putting down or insulting other posters please.

I'm not surprised you are wrong....once again. It was legal for men to rape their wives in the 1950s. incest and physical abuse were not taken seriously either. It was swept under the rug by white males and society at large as too shameful to reveal. Most workers worked 10 hours a day for six days a week. Romanticizing that time period is amusing but it would be horribly wrong.

Marital rape United States law - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

"The legal history of marital rape laws in the United States is a long and complex one, that spans over several decades. The criminalization of marital rape in the United States started in the mid-1970s and by 1993 marital rape became a crime in all 50 states,"

So your argument is that the traditional family has been vilified because of marital rape?

Nobody has said it never happened. I'm arguing to the actual OP here, and the truth is, despite the fact that you say marital rape had this huge (but apparently undocumented) incidence prior to the decimation of the nuclear family, the left has waged an all out war on the nuclear family.

As you are here. Your argument is that the nuclear family causes marital rape. Well, okay. But the rate of women being raped is STILL higher now. Violence against women is higher..the rate of DEATH is higher. And it's NOT because "gosh people just never reported it back then". It really is higher. There are more criminals, there's more poverty. Everybody knows the source of this...every study that has ever been conducted shows us that single parent household and non-traditional households are more likely to be poverty stricken, wracked by substance and other abuse issues, undereducated, criminal, and uneducated.

I mean, that's the long and short of it. Kids in non traditional households don't do as well.

The question here isn't whether or not women occasionally suffered in silence in the 50s...it's why are we attacking the nuclear family? Why are you attacking the nuclear family? Why are you trying to pretend that women in marriages are *more likely* to be raped than they are if they bounce from one man to another? And where's the data that supports that, if that's your claim?

Wrong......again. Where did I say the traditional family was vilified at all? You claimed women were protected during the 50's when the facts show it was legal to rape your wife. Why dont you sit this one out? You cant seem to get your facts straight.

BTW how can the stats for marital rape be higher now if marital rape was legal then?

 

[Asclepias]

Morals and values aren't dependent on a certain type of life style.

In addition, the so-called "Nuclear Family" lifestyle was fraught with problems for women including often a lack of respect for the stay-at home woman and the works she had to do if she had children was often valued as "less then". Add to that, if things go south in the relationship a man could divorce her, she would have few resources, no job skills because "homemaker" doesn't work well in the outside job market. The so-called "traditional family" hid a lot of abuses - alcohalism, domestic violence, dependancy. It has it's good points, but the bad points shouldn't be ignored in the yearning for some non-existant golden age.

The nuclear family provided support and protection for women in this country. Women are a lot more likely to be abused now, and the rate of abuse is much, much higher, now.

As is the crime rate, the rate of out of wedlock pregnancy, the incidence of single parent homes, and relative prison populations. And STDs as well.

I disagree.

Is the rate of abuse truly much higher or - have the laws about it changed and the reporting of it become more open? Abuse used to be hidden and shameful and usually considered the woman's fault - if only she were a better wife, a better mother, hadn't pissed him off.... Today there are many more avenues of help that did not exist in the 50's and 60's. Today, a woman has more means to escape the situation then she ever did before.

What specific protection and support did the nuclear family provide women?

Prison populations have more to do with our laws and mandatory sentancing for minor offenses then it does with the "nuclear family". Consider the relative prison populations in European countries which have also seen similar increases in one-parent families and unmarried partners.

Wrong. On all counts.

More women are abused, and killed, today than have ever been killed in the past. Your claim that women in traditional marriages are at higher risk for abuse is patently untrue. Women are MUCH more likely to be killed by boyfriends and ex boyfriends than they are likely to be killed/attacked by their husbands. What's more, their children are more likely to be killed if they are raising them outside the protection of a traditional marriage, as well.

"The number of American troops killed in Afghanistan and Iraq between 2001 and 2012 was 6,488. The number of American women who were murdered by current or ex male partners during that time was 11,766. That's nearly double the amount of casualties lost during war."

" 1,509
"The number of women murdered by men they knew in 2011. Of the 1,509 women, 926 were killed by an intimate parter and 264 of those were killed by an intimate partner during an argument."

30 Shocking Domestic Violence Statistics That Remind Us It s An Epidemic

How many of those women were murdered because of men that couldnt legally oppress them anymore and decided no one would have them if they couldnt?

How many of those domestic abuse cases went unreported during the 50s due to social stigma and the cops ignoring them?

A lot fewer than are murdered today by crazed boyfriends who don't want them to have their babies.

That would make sense because they could force the woman to get an abortion or beat it out of her without worrying about getting in trouble.

 

[koshergrl]

Through the 1950's and even into the 1960's the Traditional/Nuclear family lifestyle was very common here in the United States. This would be defined as a Single-Income family with or without children where the woman was the homemaker and the man was the breadwinner. These families based their lifestyle on the morals and values that they were taught by their parents and passed on to their children.

This type of lifestyle has slowly eroded over the last half century. Not only has this type of lifestyle become less common, but those people who still engage in it are often Villified. The men are seen as tyranical mysoginists who hate women while the women are presented as brainless twits, automatons, Stepford Wives, and traitors to the great Feminist sisterhood.

Why do you think it is that this lifestyle, which was once the core of American society has now become so hated and villified by such large segments of our society?

Morals and values aren't dependent on a certain type of life style.

In addition, the so-called "Nuclear Family" lifestyle was fraught with problems for women including often a lack of respect for the stay-at home woman and the works she had to do if she had children was often valued as "less then". Add to that, if things go south in the relationship a man could divorce her, she would have few resources, no job skills because "homemaker" doesn't work well in the outside job market. The so-called "traditional family" hid a lot of abuses - alcohalism, domestic violence, dependancy. It has it's good points, but the bad points shouldn't be ignored in the yearning for some non-existant golden age.

The nuclear family provided support and protection for women in this country. Women are a lot more likely to be abused now, and the rate of abuse is much, much higher, now.

As is the crime rate, the rate of out of wedlock pregnancy, the incidence of single parent homes, and relative prison populations. And STDs as well.

I disagree.

Is the rate of abuse truly much higher or - have the laws about it changed and the reporting of it become more open? Abuse used to be hidden and shameful and usually considered the woman's fault - if only she were a better wife, a better mother, hadn't pissed him off.... Today there are many more avenues of help that did not exist in the 50's and 60's. Today, a woman has more means to escape the situation then she ever did before.

What specific protection and support did the nuclear family provide women?

Prison populations have more to do with our laws and mandatory sentancing for minor offenses then it does with the "nuclear family". Consider the relative prison populations in European countries which have also seen similar increases in one-parent families and unmarried partners.

Wrong. On all counts.

More women are abused, and killed, today than have ever been killed in the past. Your claim that women in traditional marriages are at higher risk for abuse is patently untrue. Women are MUCH more likely to be killed by boyfriends and ex boyfriends than they are likely to be killed/attacked by their husbands. What's more, their children are more likely to be killed if they are raising them outside the protection of a traditional marriage, as well.

"The number of American troops killed in Afghanistan and Iraq between 2001 and 2012 was 6,488. The number of American women who were murdered by current or ex male partners during that time was 11,766. That's nearly double the amount of casualties lost during war."

" 1,509
"The number of women murdered by men they knew in 2011. Of the 1,509 women, 926 were killed by an intimate parter and 264 of those were killed by an intimate partner during an argument."

30 Shocking Domestic Violence Statistics That Remind Us It s An Epidemic

How many of those women were murdered because of men that couldnt legally oppress them anymore and decided no one would have them if they couldnt?

How many of those domestic abuse cases went unreported during the 50s due to social stigma and the cops ignoring them?

The data shows that all women are safer with fewer boyfriends around them and their kids. That means marriage.

" Married women are notably safer than their unmarried peers, and girls raised in a home with their married father are markedly less likely to be abused or assaulted than children living without their own father."

"..children are more likely to be abused when they do not live in a home with their married father."

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/nis4_report_congress_full_pdf_jan2010.pdf

One way to end violence against women Married dads. - The Washington Post