# Family units
**URL:** https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/family-units/20135
**Category:** Society, Government, and Economics
**Created:** [February 23, 2008, 3:50pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/family-units/20135 "2008-02-23T15:50:17Z")
**Posts on this page:** 16
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@Liteninbolt](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Liteninbolt)
#### Post date: [February 23, 2008, 3:50pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/family-units/20135/1 "2008-02-23T15:50:17Z")
Would the family unit fare better if the husband/father be the one responsible for the income of the family, while the wife/mother be at home with the children? It appears the two income family has become prevelant in today’s society. Is this true due to people wanting more material things or an abject necessity in this present economy?
---
### Author:  [@Xunzian](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Xunzian)
#### Post date: [February 23, 2008, 4:05pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/family-units/20135/2 "2008-02-23T16:05:08Z")
While I don’t think the rules need to be determined along strict gender lines, I do think a family fairs better if one of the parents (or at least someone an aunt/uncle, grandparent, even neighbor works too) can act as the primary provider for the welfare of the children and the household and the other can act as the primary provider of income. That isn’t to say that a strict one-income household is necessary, I think a part-time job while the kids are at school makes a great deal of sense, or a job with flexible enough hours to ensure that they can tend to the children. As for why it has come to the two-income model, I think it really depends on which class the family in question belongs. In the case of upper-class families, I do think it is purely a materialistic drive, but for some middle-class families and certainly most lower-class families it is a necessity, which I think is unfortunate because it can lead to a rather vicious cycle.
---
### Author:  [@Liteninbolt](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Liteninbolt)
#### Post date: [February 24, 2008, 6:20pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/family-units/20135/3 "2008-02-24T18:20:05Z")
> [@Xunzian](#):
>
> While I don’t think the rules need to be determined along strict gender lines, I do think a family fairs better if one of the parents (or at least someone an aunt/uncle, grandparent, even neighbor works too) can act as the primary provider for the welfare of the children and the household and the other can act as the primary provider of income. That isn’t to say that a strict one-income household is necessary, I think a part-time job while the kids are at school makes a great deal of sense, or a job with flexible enough hours to ensure that they can tend to the children. As for why it has come to the two-income model, I think it really depends on which class the family in question belongs. In the case of upper-class families, I do think it is purely a materialistic drive, but for some middle-class families and certainly most lower-class families it is a necessity, which I think is unfortunate because it can lead to a rather vicious cycle.
I suppose it’s not hard to guess with all of my prior postings here in ILP, it’s not har figure out I’m more of what could be considered traditional family man. Although alternative guardian type measures would be acceptable from another relative. I wonder though in trying to hard to provide for our family if we sometimes go overboard in things we purchase. Parents too are hit with ‘societal peer pressure’ to keep up with the Jones as it were. Buying TV’s for each child along with their own computers. I would say most parents fall prey to these situations. Hopefully, loving guidance will offset parental over indulgence by trying to teach what is important in life. It seems living by example doesn’t fall along those lines for most parents.
This thread must not be considered important deliberating material here in ILP due to the lack of responses. C’est la vie.
---
### Author:  [@Xunzian](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Xunzian)
#### Post date: [February 24, 2008, 6:32pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/family-units/20135/4 "2008-02-24T18:32:08Z")
Well, the capitalist/consumerist society that we live in operates on the drive of people purchasing more than they need. That is what advertising is all about: convincing people that they need a new product. I mean, everyone in the household having their own computer, MP3 player, TV, whatever-gadget is clearly indicative of that. Likewise with multiple car households. If you look around there is a lot of junk that we don’t need and, even more shockingly, a lot of this junk is redundant! I do think drives like that lead to overindulgence and obscure what is ultimately important and of value for things that are of much less ultimate value but are shinier. And who doesn’t like shiny things?
---
### Author:  [@Ingenium](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Ingenium)
#### Post date: [February 24, 2008, 7:58pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/family-units/20135/5 "2008-02-24T19:58:13Z")
My view is that this inequity exists mostly because the private sphere activity is still deemed to be of lesser value than the public sphere activity. Therefore, regardless of whether it’s a male parent or a female parent that might choose to do the ‘home and hearth’ work, s/he will not receive compensation for it. Ironically, should s/he decide to enter into the public sphere or work, the family will have to pay someone else to do their private sphere work (like childcare or cleaning). What should’ve happened when women enterered the public sphere (e.g, the world of outside work) is that there should’ve been a corresponding analysis of how the work that makes it possible for one parent to do that is valued and compensated. We have always valued that which is done in the public sphere to transform the world versus that which is done in the private sphere (raising healthy, whole children) to transform the world. Even in the public sphere, childcare workers and teachers are traditionally lower-paid jobs.
It’s partly because there has been no real change in the view of our private sphere activities that the average worker makes less in real dollars than 30 years ago and so why, when two people in the family work full-time, it’s not the same as it would’ve been had they both done that in 1975 (not that this was really possible, since women were way behind in entry into the public sphere then, anyway). Not that I think this public/private argument is the only consideration, by any means. There’s also been the right-wing’s political power which resulted in the targeted demolition of unions over the 80’s, the vast increase in media (as a powerful marketing tool) intrusion in our lives and the relaxation of regulations in banking and credit. Greed used to be consider something to guard against, now it’s just the way it works.
---
### Author:  [@Carleas](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Carleas)
#### Post date: [February 24, 2008, 10:26pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/family-units/20135/6 "2008-02-24T22:26:45Z")
It’s a product of supply and demand that wages are less now than they were. With women’s lib, the workforce was effectively doubled. Twice the supply + the same demand = roughly half the price. At this point, I don’t know that there’s any going back, but if you look at the european model, which has a shorter work week and more time off in general, that’s a possible solution.
I have no problem with having a dedicated care-giver in the family, and ideally it should be a parent. It provides a kind of support for child-rearing that daycare and even nannies can’t offer. But I do have a problem with genderizing that role. At the very least, having women and men in approximately equal proportions in the workplace better represents society in terms of the goods and services they provide. In capitalism, controlling corporations is as big a part of governance as voting or holding office. To truly represent the interests of society, the make-up of the controlling class needs to reflect the make-up of society generally.
---
### Author:  [@Liteninbolt](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Liteninbolt)
#### Post date: [February 24, 2008, 11:53pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/family-units/20135/7 "2008-02-24T23:53:39Z")
> [@Ingenium](#):
>
> It’s partly because there has been no real change in the view of our private sphere activities that the average worker makes less in real dollars than 30 years ago and so why, when two people in the family work full-time, it’s not the same as it would’ve been had they both done that in 1975
I agree the ratio changes in the GNP has mitigated the initiation of the two income family in conjunction of the feminist movement. I also cite the inundation of credit card companies aiding the instant gratification phenomenon. Our mailbox gets at least one or two solicitations a week from Capital One trying to seduce my wife and I into getting cards from them. What is bad is they also target young couples which gets them into insurmoutable debt which cripples them for years.
---
### Author:  [@Liteninbolt](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Liteninbolt)
#### Post date: [February 25, 2008, 12:08am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/family-units/20135/8 "2008-02-25T00:08:55Z")
> [@Carleas](#):
>
> It’s a product of supply and demand that wages are less now than they were. With women’s lib, the workforce was effectively doubled. Twice the supply + the same demand = roughly half the price. At this point, I don’t know that there’s any going back, but if you look at the european model, which has a shorter work week and more time off in general, that’s a possible solution.
>
> I have no problem with having a dedicated care-giver in the family, and ideally it should be a parent. It provides a kind of support for child-rearing that daycare and even nannies can’t offer. But I do have a problem with genderizing that role. At the very least, having women and men in approximately equal proportions in the workplace better represents society in terms of the goods and services they provide. In capitalism, controlling corporations is as big a part of governance as voting or holding office. To truly represent the interests of society, the make-up of the controlling class needs to reflect the make-up of society generally.
In regard to the genderizing aspect, that may have to be determined from cultural and possibly religious points of view. When two people of a like nature agree to have a family, those two factors could have a bearing in how their income is made. With the different facets of lifestyles, it is getting more apparent the paradigm will stay in flux.
---
### Author:  [@Maytacera](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Maytacera)
#### Post date: [February 25, 2008, 8:17pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/family-units/20135/9 "2008-02-25T20:17:16Z")
Children will obviously do better if they have an adult at home the majority of the time (assuming the adult is a responsible adult.).
---
### Author:  [@Gaiaguerrilla](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Gaiaguerrilla)
#### Post date: [March 10, 2008, 2:31pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/family-units/20135/10 "2008-03-10T14:31:45Z")
I think we should disban the entire concept of the family unit. Why do kids have to live with mom and dad? By average circumstance they’re probably deadbeat drug addicts, no matter who’s at home.
Well . . . I suppose that doesn’t contribute a lot to your concerns . . .
---
### Author:  [@Joker](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Joker)
#### Post date: [March 10, 2008, 2:42pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/family-units/20135/11 "2008-03-10T14:42:45Z")
I personally prefer women staying home in raising the children.
Of course in our liberated era of equality and utopian morality, we musn’t have that! 🕶
It is heresy to speak of motherhood from men to women.
---
### Author:  [@301.70](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/301.70)
#### Post date: [March 10, 2008, 4:49pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/family-units/20135/12 "2008-03-10T16:49:04Z")
> [@Gaiaguerrilla](#):
>
> I think we should disban the entire concept of the family unit. Why do kids have to live with mom and dad?
Right, this was Plato’s thinking as well. The family unit is dirty and animal. It is emotional and irrational. It gets in the way of the republic.
> [@Gaiaguerrilla](#):
>
> Why do kids have to live with mom and dad?
My thinking too. You might have heard it said “Children are not just little people;” and wondered, what does that mean? Well, they are little, that is not in dispute, so what then? they aren’t people?
But I agree with you, “kids” are people too, and they deserve the same liberties that any other human is entitled to. Just like the Moslems say, submit only to God, not to any earthly power, not to man or state or parent. (I worry that “kid” is maybe a bit of a dehumanizing term, something like “nigger”; what do you think?)
Check out ASFAR’s ideas, you’ll like them.
> [@Americans for a Society Free from Age Restrictions](#):
>
> Declaration of Principles
> We, the Americans for a Society Free from Age Restrictions believe that in a free society, government should allow its citizens the greatest degree of freedom as possible without placing the public safety in jeopardy. We believe that the spirit of the Constitution of the United States calls for such a policy. However, we believe that age-restrictive laws legislated by federal, state, and local governments in the United States violate such principles. Therefore, all laws that are based on age should be repealed, and all government policies that discriminate by age should be reversed. Some of those laws and policies are specified below.
>
> 1. Voting - Position Paper
>
> 1.1. A Constitutional amendment forbidding the right to vote to be denied on the basis of age should be proposed and sent to the states for ratification.
>
> 1.2. States should allow people of all ages to vote in federal and state elections.
>
> 1.3. County and local governments and school districts should eliminate their voting age and minimum age to hold public office.
>
> 1. Free Speech - Position Paper
>
> 2.1. Young people should be able to access any form of speech (music, movies, etc…) legal for adults.
>
> 2.2. The current MPAA system of rating movies and other ratings systems should be replaced with a system which advises viewers of a movie’s content but neither restricts access to a film by age or recommends “appropriate ages” for viewers.
>
> 1. The Age of Majority and Legal Emancipation
>
> 3.1. The age separating legal adults from “minors” should be eliminated. Until this happens, the number of legal distinctions between adults and “minors” should decrease.
>
> 3.2. The ability to apply for legal emancipation, and all the rights adult status entails, should be granted to all citizens of the United States.
>
> 3.3. The right to enter into contracts should not be restricted on the basis of age.
>
> 3.4. The right of a foreigner to apply for American citizenship should not be denied on the basis of age, and should not require parental consent.
>
> 3.5. The right to leave the country or travel between states should not be denied on the basis of age, and should not require parental consent.
>
> 1. Corporal Punishment
>
> 4.1. The right to be safe from physical punishment should not be abridged on the basis of age.
>
> 1. Education - Position Paper
>
> 5.1. The course selections and other educational decisions of public school students should not be controlled by either the school or their parents.
>
> 5.2. In no instance should public school students be forced to wear uniforms.
>
> 5.3. All laws requiring compulsory education should be repealed.
>
> 5.4. The Constitutional rights of all students should be protected at school.
>
> 5.5. There should be no law requiring parental consent in enrollment into educational institutions, and schools should not require parental consent.
>
> 5.6. A decision by parents to enroll a child in school should not create a legal obligation for the child to attend.
>
> 5.7. Schools and education policy makers should actively work to create greater academic freedom for students at all levels.
>
> 1. The Courts
>
> 6.1. Young people should be able to receive a trial by a jury of their peers. (Therefore, young people who register to vote after the enactment of changes called for in this article of this Declaration should be required to serve jury duty under the same conditions as voters previously registered.)
>
> 6.2. Young people should have the right to legal representation, with or without parental consent, with an attorney who acts as an advocate for them and not a guardian ad litem.
>
> 1. Age Discrimination in Public Places and Businesses
>
> 7.1. Businesses should not refuse to hire or serve people simply because of their age.
>
> 7.2. As long as laws prohibiting discrimination by businesses on a basis other than age exist, local governments should protect from discrimination by businesses on the basis of age.
>
> 7.3. As long as the federal government protects groups from discrimination in employment on a basis other than age, it should extend complete protection from age discrimination in employment to all ages. Until it does so, states and local governments should protect young people from discrimination in hiring as long as those governments protect groups from discrimination on a basis other than age.
>
> 1. Economics
>
> 8.1. Institutions that offer credit cards should offer cards to financially capable young people.
>
> 8.2. Banks should allow financially capable young people to open accounts and take out loans.
>
> 8.3. Legal gambling ages should be abolished.
>
> 8.4. The right to own property should not be denied on the basis of age.
>
> 8.5. The right to work should not be denied on the basis of age.
>
> 1. Health and Sexuality
>
> 9.1. Rights to medical consent should not be restricted on the basis of age.
>
> 9.2. Access to birth control pills and other birth control devices should not be restricted on the basis of age.
>
> 9.3. Laws that require the notification or consent of parents for abortions should be repealed.
>
> 9.4. Laws fixing a minimum age of sexual consent should be substantially reformed to protect young people’s consensual behavior.
>
> 1. Travel
>
> 10.1. Driving being essential to mobility in our society, minimum driving ages should be eliminated.
>
> 10.2. Restrictions preventing young people from renting hotel rooms should be lifted.
>
> 10.3. Car rental agencies should rent to young people.
>
> 1. Curfew Laws - Position Paper
>
> 11.1. Curfew laws based on age should be repealed.
>
> 11.2. States should take action to limit curfew laws in townships whose laws are based on directives from state governments.
>
> 1. The Drinking Age
>
> 12.1. The National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984, which forces states to have a minimum drinking age of 21 (or lose matching federal highway funds) should be repealed.
>
> 12.2. States should begin the elimination of their drinking ages.
>
> 12.3. All zero tolerance laws based on age should be repealed.
>
> 1. Respect in the Media
>
> 13.1. The popular and news media should speak of young people in the same fashion in which they speak of older people. References by name should be parallel with references made to older citizens. The age of the subject should not be mentioned unless it features prominently in the context of the story. 13.2. The news media should exercize caution when making generalizations about young people as an age group, including extrapolation from scientific studies. Reporting of psychological studies on young people should be limited to the facts in the study, and should specify any scientific hedges and points of possible error or uncertainty.
>
> 1. Right to Bear Arms
>
> 14.1. The right to keep and bear arms should not be restricted on the basis of age.
>
> 1. Gulag Schools
>
> 15.1. Gulag schools (euphemistically called “behavior modification schools”) should be abolished within the United States. Attempting to force a young person to leave the country for the purpose of sending them to a gulag school should be a criminal act.
>
> 1. Selective Service
>
> 16.1. There should be no age-based selective service program.
---
### Author:  [@Maytacera](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Maytacera)
#### Post date: [March 10, 2008, 7:12pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/family-units/20135/13 "2008-03-10T19:12:51Z")
> [@Joker](#):
>
> I personally prefer women staying home in raising the children.
>
> Of course in our liberated era of equality and utopian morality, we musn’t have that! 🕶
>
> It is heresy to speak of motherhood from men to women.
I agree actually, but it depends on the couple involved. Some women don’t have that family gene in them.
---
### Author:  [@MagsJ](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/MagsJ)
#### Post date: [March 10, 2008, 10:12pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/family-units/20135/14 "2008-03-10T22:12:17Z")
How each family unit exists is up to them - I am not a dictator, and would never impose my will or ideals on others…
---
### Author:  [@Maytacera](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Maytacera)
#### Post date: [March 11, 2008, 5:34pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/family-units/20135/15 "2008-03-11T17:34:21Z")
Meh. I don’t really care too much one way or the other…for myself I would rather stay at home with kids than have my husband do it.
---
### Author:  [@stephenstillwell](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/stephenstillwell)
#### Post date: [March 28, 2008, 3:40pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/family-units/20135/16 "2008-03-28T15:40:10Z")
> [@301.70](#):
>
> Check out ASFAR’s ideas, you’ll like them.
>
> > [@Americans for a Society Free from Age Restrictions](#):
> >
Looks like NAMBLA got a new name.
I want to stay home and take care of grandchildren.
Universal Enfranchisement would increase the viable choices for family unit structure.