Whose Traditional Family Values?

As I read “Same-sex couples in North Carolina prepare for marriage vote” I couldn’t help but be reminded of an article I recently wrote for a gender studies class.  While it may be somewhat disjointed, the argument revolves around the need for some to define the ideal family:

An individual’s family may be the most consistent aspect of their life.  The degree to which an individual may interact with their family will undoubtedly vary; nonetheless, a family is the one thing that most individuals have in common.  Politicians, the media and religious organizations like to make a big deal about what the ideal family may look like, but the fact of the matter is that it is impossible to apply a cookie-cutter type approach when attempting to define the ideal family or even traditional family values.  The conditions that enabled the seemingly-ideal 1950s family (stay-at-home mother) are almost nonexistent today. Today, families face economic burdens that require both parents to work or, in the instances of single-parent homes, one parent to work two jobs.  Today’s parents are torn between traditional family obligations (game night, little league and dance recitals) and contemporary family obligations (ensuring the rent is paid and there is food on the table).  Some, just as Annette Lareau’s research alludes, would argue that sacrificing that former in favor of the latter is a detriment to the development of children and may even create inconsistent or unstable families.  In her article Unequal Childhoods Lareau cites evidence that middle-class children seem to have an advantage over their poorer peers because the parents of middle-class children are more engaging.  Increased engagement, Lareau argues, leads to greater cognitive and personal interaction skills (p. 346).   The article also suggests that the actions (looking each other in the eye when they talk, for example) of middle-class parents instills responsibility in their children whereas the lack of these actions on the part of poorer parents put their children at a marked disadvantage.  This is yet another attempt to apply cookie-cutter standards across a broad spectrum to the development families.  The suggestion that poor families do not look each other in the eye when they interact is absurd.  Moreover, this argument completely dismisses the ideals and lessons transferred to children through the observation of their parents’ hard work.  Responsibility is providing for your family regardless of the circumstances.  As such, it could be argued that poorer families are do more to instill the ideal of responsibility than more affluent families who may rely on nannies or maids to help care for children.

Another area in which “experts” attempt to define the ideal family is in its composition, specifically that a family should be comprised of a mother and father.  These same experts would have you believe that in the absence of a mother and father a child is better left in the care of a foster family than in a loving home where both parents may be of the same sex.  Kath Weston addresses this belief in her article Straight Is to Gay as Family Is to No Family by highlighting the common misconception that same-sex couples are predisposed to a life of “solitude and loneliness” and therefore are incapable of providing a stable family life for children (p. 339).  Once again, society is attempting to apply an outdated Leave it to Beaver template to contemporary families.  Being a homosexual in the 1950s and 60s was taboo and living in a same-sex marriage type environment was unthinkable.  Today, however, same-sex marriage is becoming increasingly more acceptable, but yet same-sex couples continue to face difficulties in adopting.  It is as if parenting is like chemistry and families are a formula where equal parts male + equal parts female = perfectly harmonious family life.  We all know this not to be the case.  Every day we are inundated with images of abused and exploited children who were growing up in these so-called ideal homes (mother and father).  What, then, is the explanation for these violations against traditional family values?

The answer is the outdated template, or the fact that a template is even used.  Family, in the sense that everyone has a one, will remain consistent throughout time.  The idea of its makeup, however, must conform to an ever-changing society.

3 comments

  1. chrissnipes (@chrissnipes)

    I disagree with the statement that “…families face economic burdens that require both parents to work…” As a US Army Soldier, my base pay has me squarely within the federal guidelines for poverty. That being said, my family of 6 (2 parents and 4 children) survive nicely on a single income. In fact, with careful budgeting we are able to put money into savings, send our only school aged child to parochial school and tithe at church. Both of us drive new(er) cars that were purchased new and are now both paid for. Families can survive on a single income but the family must be willing to prioritize and make sacrifices.

    I do totatly agree that same sex couples are as (or more than) capable of loving a child and most children will be better off than being left to the foster care system. I’ve been a Social Worker and know, first hand, the woes children face in that broken system.

    • jasonbogus

      Sure, it is not an across the board type situation. Some make do better than others, but being in the military you receive a housing stipend, which may or may not cover your mortgage in its entirety so I think you have a bit of an advantage over the rest of your peers living below the poverty line (said tongue-in-cheek, of course).

      • chrissnipes (@chrissnipes)

        Very true, I do receive an allowance for housing that exactly covers the mortgage for my home. In full disclosure, my family is pretty far to the right of the poverty line if you include all the allowances and benefits that are provided to a military family e.g., housing and food allowance, health insurance, life insurance, post privileges such as commissary and PX usage. The point I was trying to make is that according the bean counters, my taxable income is low. Not Warren Buffet low, but pretty close! If a family decides that they want to take a shot at living as a single income family, it is doable with some planning. We don’t eat out a lot and we don’t have cable, but we have a nice home and nice things.

        Any way…your blog has made the cut. I’ve added it to my “blog” folder in my favorites. Keep up the good work.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s