Let’s try this one more time. I don’t think anyone’s questioning that a collapse of the family would cause problems for a society. The question is, has this ever, in the history of civilization, actually happened? It seems that you think it has; we’d really like to know when & where, and what evidence you have of it?
Well, Romans of Augustus’ time thought the family was collapsing, in that marriage seemed to be increasingly unpopular (why buy the cow when you can buy a nice little slave-girl?); that’s why Augustus pased laws punishing bachelors and rewarding married men.
It didn’t. Byzantine power as a meaningful world-spanning “empire” was thoroughly ended by the rise of Islam. A rump state ruling over an ever-decreasing portion of Turkey and Greece was the successor to the Eastern Roman Empire but was by no means the survival of anything particularly Roman or Imperial, being a Greek-speaking, culturally Christian, and rather small state.
The principle problem with adultery (and the source of jealousy) is paternity. As you said, that’s why the genders are traditionally separated socially. But because paternity cannot be an issue if the men-folk are porking during a hunting trip and the lady-folk are diddling in the kitchen, it shouldn’t threaten any of their marriages. (Prioritization of resources would play a role, as well, but that’s an issue anyway with platonic friendships.)
It seems to me that a man being jealous of his wife’s lesbian lovers (or genderflip that whole premise) is pretty much a misfiring of evolutionary instincts. It would make as much sense as being jealous of of your wife’s vibrator or your husband’s right hand. It certainly does happen, don’t get me wrong. It seems sort of silly unless there is a material loss of affection due to gay infidelity.
This is the first post of yours that’s ever made any sense, why is this the time you choose to qualify it? Your other posts in this thread are filled with fact-free assertions dripping with ignorance like:
As others have said: the nuclear family is essentially a product of the industrial revolution, and civilization has marched on before and since. In reality, the nuke family, extended family, the clan, the community, the military regiment, the church, and the individual are all institutions that have been more or less fundamental to various civilizations and each of them have trade-offs when they are the primary focus. Individualism tends to lead to greater innovation than clan-based societies, but they are also more disjointed and have difficulty dealing with poverty. Nuke families are sort of a middle-ground and roughly speaking a good foundation (though it still lacks the safety net inherent to a community). But you’re missing a crucial fact:
A married / committed gay couple and their kids are effectively a nuclear family.
So, all your arguments, ahistorical and inaccurate as they are, still don’t address the central premise of the theory, anyway.
One more thing, you responded to the subject line of this thread twice, making two different points, similar to the way people pipe in when something’s “too long ; didn’t read” as well as engage in the actual topic. This leads me to the conclusion that your account is being used by multiple people. Is that so? If it is (I don’t think there’s a rule against it), you should at least tell us so we don’t try to have a direct discussion with you, expecting you to be consistent and responsive.
Theophane, rereading your posts, I think I may have put words in your mouth about whether gay-headed families are sufficiently nuclear or socially healthy. If I misrepresent you, please set me straight.
In any case, get off the damn cross. No one’s making you post here nor read the reactions what you say. You’re free to criticize anyone else’s opinion, just as they are to criticize yours. Grow some calluses.
Do not accuse other posters of trolling except in The BBQ Pit.
[ /Moderating ]
As I understand it, many Native American tribes did just fine without the concept, working more as tight-knit communities than families, where children were raised by the tribe as a whole.
Of course, their civilization kinda collapsed, but you can’t really blame poxy blankets and systematic ethnic cleansing by the next civilization over on the lack of nuclear families.
For that matter, the Ottomans seemed to be doing mighty fine with their harems and such. Built an empire and everything. Their imperial successions were more fratricidal than a nest of snakes obviously, but that only builds scheming paranoid emperors. Those last.
I believe that is more of the ideal in terms of human social structure. The nuclear family structure is more of a product of isolation and property.
did anyone actualy read the article? Its not as nutty as one might think.
Is this supposed to be revolutionary? Family is our word for people who care about each other beyond the level of social duty. This is basically the premise of roughly 60% of the sitcoms of the last 40 years. And no one is debating the importance of small groups of people with strong interconnected emotional bonds. Genetic similarities grant a degree of instinctual camaraderie, but it isn’t necessary. So shared gene families are certainly the easiest way to create a support group, but it’s not necessarily the best. Not to mention that they sometimes don’t naturally exist (death and disaffection being common reasons).
If conservatives really cared about civilizational health, they would stop going on about the importance of families that don’t exist and start a movement to ensure people have something that fills that support role. Rick Santorum and others go around talking about how families are important. So are legs. But for people that don’t have them, it’s not exactly helping to just remind them of it. Better get on with developing effective prostheses.
And it would be equally counterproductive to prevent people who are perfectly willing and able to grow legs from legally doing so!
They had a much better border situation. They had a relatively small and defensible border in the Balkans with barbarian groups. Their main border was with the Persian Empire in the east. A war with Persia would be a major event but when relations between Byzantium and Persia were peaceful, the border was quiet - so there were periods when Byzantium could rebuild and re-equip.
In the west, there was virtually never any peaceful periods along their long border. The was no single dominant power that was threatening to cross the border but there would always be some group that was doing so. So the western military was constantly under attack and war was an ongoing drain on manpower and resources.
Hear, hear!
Where are you seeing all this in the OP?
Not to mention that the Persian empire was a pretty good buffer against barbarian invasions as well. It’s easier to deal and negociate with a threatening but mostly settled neighbour than with hordes of displaced (or nomadic) warriors.
The fact that Byzantium was filthy stinking rich couldn’t have hurt, either.
That arrangement broke down in the seventh century, when the Byzantines and the Persians spent an entire generation beating the crap out of each other. Finally, both sides had settled down to a peace of mutual exhaustion… just in time for the Arabs to show up and conquer half of the former empire and all of the latter.
Well, that, and the Victorian era was 19th century.
That’s what he just said.
“The Emperor is not as forgiving as I am.”
– Darth Wallenstein
You never heard of the Spartans, then? They have some reputation for being fierce warriors and extremly gay and still popping out babies for all their wars, and they had communal living for most of their life.
So for the first years of their life, when they had to be breastfeed, learn to walk and talk, they stayed with their mother; and later, when they were married, still lived mostly in thebarracks with their mates and not with their family.