The "Family Values" trope.

[Sleepy Sol]

Aaaaand again we see a thread discussing a problem turn into a thread demonstrating one.

Escapist general.

OP: The most vocal proponents of "family values" tend to know or exhibit very little of what those words should actually constitute.

Family matters to me but is not really especially important. I'm not quite sure how to explain it, other than that I maintain decidedly better relationships with certain members of my family by far compared to others. Blood doesn't and shouldn't matter. Not sure if all of my brothers being half-brothers helps that attitude in any capacity, but I imagine I'd think similarly regardless.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

When a term has been politicized, whatever it used to mean tends to become null and void. At one point, family values meant that people took responsibility for their offspring and families stuck together among other things. Now its become a political weapon, and thus all meaning goes out the window.
All I will say is that I think its a term, taken out of any political context, that one has to define for oneself. I was lucky to have a good family growing up, and I've also expanded said family by way of treating those I call friend as such. To me, family values are nothing more than people who're close sticking together and taking care of each other, with a lot of emphasis on love and acceptance. Thats it.
Any other definition doesn't matter to me.

 

[Zontar]

Tell me ... what mythical age are you talking about?

Evidently not a real one in your eyes given how you phrased it, not that statistics on criminal backgrounds in the US have anything to say about it.

My grandfather was beaten to an inch of his life that he lost 2 teeth to his father's fists alone before he was 15. That nuclear family?

Yes, the nuclear family that civilization was literally built upon. Is it perfect? Hell no. Has it objectively proven itself to be better then a society filled with single parents? Yes.

IF it's fact then you'll show me the evidence.

http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2012/12/the-real-complex-connection-between-single-parent-families-and-crime/265860/

Then what do you mean? Either they're advocating breaking up families or they're not.

I'm pretty certain my taking a strong stance against single parenthood and my very clear stance on the nuclear family being in line with that of the UN declaration of human rights (that being that it is the foundation upon which our civilization is built) makes it clear where I stand on the matter. But if you need it explicitly spelt out: I am not advocating for the braking up of families, on the contrary I'm frankly disgusted by the fact the largest reason for divorces is due to sexual dissatisfaction, and that those who use that as their reason for divorce cannot be called good parents given what divorce does to children.

So far all I've seen is rather nuanced discussion about where parental rights end and where the health and safety of children begin. Unless you think it's okay for parents to beat their children all the way to the hospital.

I don't see how THAT relates to what I've been saying either. Again there's something between what I said and what you said that is connecting them which you haven't written down, so I can't see the logical train of thought from one subject to the next.

I got kicked out of home at 16. What is so fucking difficult to understand?

The fact you never stated you had been kicked from your home at age 16 until now, and from your previous comments made it look as if you had been both raised by two parents until adulthood while also not having been raised by any parents at the same time. It's an issue of clarity. I think you're making too many assumptions on what I know about you based on what you've written.

his is why it is inherently connected to the subject of 'family values' ... they turn out to destroy family units. Your failure to comprehend this is no different than any other right wing republitard on tv.

Again there is no logical connection between what has already been said and what you're saying here. I'm honestly wondering if half your post may have been eaten up in a system problem because it seems you aren't responding to my comment, but instead responding to a comment I haven't even made yet that was itself a response to a comment you posted.

I honestly don't know how to respond to this because I didn't say anything that even warranted it as a response in the first place.

If there is no capacity for upward mobility at 16, how exactly is that better for people?

I never claimed it WAS better for people.

I was also under the impression you where talking about the fact that many, particularly in the middle and upper-middle class, have been coddled during adolescence and as a result when they turn 18 and go off to collage or enter the job market they aren't ready for the situations they've been thrown into since their parents didn't get them ready for it.

I feel as though there's been a major problem in communication between us in this thread.

But as a culture, little by little, we've done everything in our power to curtail such options.

I'm a military brat. Both my grandparents where in the military, my parents met in it, and three of my four biological uncles where in it. Two of my cousins are also currently in it, I spend a few years in the service, and another cousin is considering joining. With the financial state most of my family is in (I'm in the better off half) I honestly don't disagree with a single thing you've said about that issue. The problem is though that many simply don't support military funding and many of the programs are the first to go because they don't keep the ships steaming, the planes flying or the tanks rolling. And as sad as it is to say that's more important to the military then helping some kid stay off the street.

Unless you wish that the right to life stops being a right.

Hey now, I never even BEGAN to imply anything of the sort and you know that. I simply stated that in my country (Canada) we've had minor privatization added into our public system due to it being elements of the American private system that actually functioned, and as a result we've seen a decrease in waiting times compared to 20 years ago.

I'm not a madman who thinks we or anyone else should adopt the American system. I'm simply pointing out the fact that elements that worked within that system that we adopted into our own have improved it.

 

[Something Amyss]

I acknowledge that you are correct and that this thing has been going on for more than what I posted, but the length of time I referred to was when the discourse and debate about this got national attention AND in regards to what constitutes "family" legally. My apologies for not presenting this in my first post.

Well, even if we define our terms specifically to, say, national attention of same-sex marriage (which I would infer from your example of Prop 8), you're still off by at least a decade. The federal Defense of Marriage Act was signed into law in 1996, which was heralded by national attention in the wake of the 1993 attempt by Hawaii to become the first state to legalise same-sex marriage (albeit via court ruling). Groups like Focus on the Family (not sure they're the biggest, but they're a name I remember) as well as celebrities and national politicians made homosexuality a major issue.

As a queer teen from the 90s, a lot of this is burned into my psyche. Also as someone with ties to Vermont and Massachusetts, where this was a huge topic that brought people across the nation to join in and harass us lowly LGBT folk.

The term was already heavy enough in public consciousness that Korn used political "satire" to promote their Family Values tour, with a bunch of other acts, in 1998. This was a more broad version of the term, mind, but it's still worth pointing out that this is a thing that happened.

In the end, I feel that if something does not infringe upon my life or my belongings, there should be no problem whatsoever. Such as the issue at hand here.

I'm inclined to agree with that.

I've done quite well for myself, in 'our civilization'. No family required.

In fairness, we are part of an active plot to destroy said society. Whoops, did I say that out loud?

Aaaaand again we see a thread discussing a problem turn into a thread demonstrating one.

There ought to be a name for this phenomenon.

Blood doesn't and shouldn't matter. Not sure if all of my brothers being half-brothers helps that attitude in any capacity, but I imagine I'd think similarly regardless.

For what it's worth, there are several people in this world more precious to me than my family-by-blood. Then again, I have a pretty shitty family overall.

One of the things I actually find interesting about this supposed blood bond is that one of the supposedly most important bonds is the husband-wife (because let's face it, that's the only "family" that tends to be valued) one. And we kind of discourage a blood bond there.

So obviously, we do intuitively understand family without blood. Even if my partner and I decided to have a ton of kids, we'd never be related by blood.

 

[Skatologist]

snip

I'm not exactly sure if this post would be most relevant to the conversation, but I do dislike coming back into a thread and note quoting anyone. I just think what you and what a few other people are alluding to is how people want others to be "grateful" and being grateful to your family would mean to say you[footnote]Uses of "you" here and beyond this point being the general "you" and not necessarily the user MarsAtlas[/footnote] love them no matter what. This being due to the fact they housed and fed you for however many years you had been with them along with any other supposed sacrifices they supposedly made for you. Although, as I think I've stated previously, people are never really owed how someone else feels about them. This should of course extend to family members, especially abusive, neglectful, and hateful ones.

 

[Callate]

There's nothing wrong with a nuclear family with a mother and father and children; a lot of children have been raised quite successfully that way, and it certainly has its benefits.

But you shouldn't get to rail on about "family values" when you openly defy the principles that allow such families to exist. Not homosexuality, divorce, abortion, transexuality, or teenagers having sex, though: things like opposing family leave. Enabling "on call" work policies that allow employers to demand their employees be available to work while only paying them for the hours they're actually on site. Supporting "abstinence only" education but failing to demand accommodations in employment or education for the day care such policies will inevitably require, particularly when you forbid abortion. Bailing out predatory home lenders and then allowing them to erode whatever regulations might prevent them from doing it again.

The danger of a family being torn apart by the example of someone who doesn't match the mold of a traditional nuclear family ideal is infinitesimally small compared to the danger of a family being torn apart by not being able to afford food or housing, or never having time to spend together as a family, or having to choose between paying for heat or a sudden emergency medical bill.

 

[Something Amyss]

It is, at least a little, my fault. I apologize for digging this hole.

Can anyone ever forgive me?

I, for one, shall never forgive you. I shall always hold...whatever it is we're talking about...against you.

...ooh, shiny!

What were we talking about again?

 

[DefunctTheory]

Spoiler

It is, at least a little, my fault. I apologize for digging this hole.

Can anyone ever forgive me?

I, for one, shall never forgive you. I shall always hold...whatever it is we're talking about...against you.

...ooh, shiny!

What were we talking about again?

You were about to share some of your saucier erotica with me, I think.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Evidently not a real one in your eyes given how you phrased it, not that statistics on criminal backgrounds in the US have anything to say about it.

Yeah? Homicide rates are falling in the US. You know what is driving up incarcerations rates in the US? Failure to pay fines... of which accounts for over 25% of people currently incarcerated in US jails. Put this into perspective, 1 in four prisoners in the US are only in prison for up to 10 days in most places. In the next twenty years, just how much of the population do you think US jails will chew through if living quality continues to stagnate?

Might explain why we might actually want to start looking at making living more affordable again. It has fuck all to do with family ... it has everything to do with the massive debtors' prison Ponzi scheme of the justice system, as jails are privatised and police fines become one of the few revenue streams counties receive because nobody earns enough to pay taxes.

http://www.npr.org/2014/05/21/313118629/supreme-court-ruling-not-enough-to-prevent-debtors-prisons

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/21/mississippi-debtors-prison-poverty-lawsuit

Yes, the nuclear family that civilization was literally built upon. Is it perfect? Hell no. Has it objectively proven itself to be better then a society filled with single parents? Yes.

https://aifs.gov.au/cfca/publications/economic-costs-child-abuse-and-neglect

http://www.blueknot.org.au/Portals/2/Economic%20Report/The%20cost%20of%20unresolved%20trauma_budget%20report%20fnl.pdf

No, it's not. In fact, dare I say it's not objectively proven ... you have yet to prove a single thing you've said. In fact, I have a pile of research to say you're speaking garbage. As per government estimations ... unresolved child abuse costs us more than providing child abuse prevention services, including out-of-home care and social welfare for single parents fleeing abusive spouses.

Never is it okay to leave a child in an abusive situation. EVER. It costs us less to remove offenders from the situation than it does to basically ignore it. If anything, what we've discovered in Australia is that by implementing the full weight of child abuse prevention services, we reduce juvenile incarceration rates. You want to know how I know? Well, apart from the research saying as such, I did illegal things to survive.

I wouldn't have needed to if, you know, homeless youth weren't treated like garbage nor expected to stay in abusive households.

 

[Mister K]

Snip

Yes, I vented yesterday and had slept already. Now I see what you actually meant. I apologise and agree. And I'll be honest: my initial reaction was mostly because of my tiredness and, well, my experience with reading your other posts, which sometimes striked me as a bit too liberal. Again, in this case at the very least, I stand corrected.

Sigh, thought of a day:
"Stay away from political threads".

Better idea, read what posters have actually said and advocated for in the thread in question before going off on a one page rant about extremes and bigotry that nobody has actually stated in this thread.
If you think what your going to say pertains to what a user has said in the thread you can always quote them and challenge them on their opinions.
Bowing out now because it turns out that what your whining about is being called out as never happening in the thread is your own fault. Not the cause of some political forum discourse.

No, what I meant is that arguing over anything political on the Internet is pointless because it usually doesn't result in something constructive.

But I guess I am a primitive monster and primitive monsters are too dumb and primitive to joke, right?

Nobody said that. Don't fabricate insults out of thin air and then attribute them to me, as if I've expressed them in any way. I haven't. Those are a creation of your own.

It was not directed to you, but towards others who called me, among other things, bigot. If anything, I have a slight case of general misantropy

Although, I've seen countless posts about how men should be wiped out, how white people are the problem. Yet, nobody dares to say that they are being unreasonable, because people don't want to see threats in their inbox from people they dared to disagree with.

I don't believe this, either. People "dare to say they're unreasonable" constantly, and in much stronger terms than that.

In fact, the number of people and posts "daring to say they're unreasonable" far outweigh those actually expressing the positions you described themselves.

Considering that I have nothing to refute with and the fact that I want to believe you, I'll accept this and consider what I've seen as a case of highly vocal minority.

Haha holy fuck this thread went from 10 to 11 real fast.

No, I am not talking about this site.

Then why bring it up in the context of this thread. It looks like youre just looking for a fight for the sake of a fight.

You know what? You are absolutely correct. Right. Not in the wrong. I guess I have too many bad things happening in my life and this thread had such a problematic topic. Guess it all spilled on my pants and on every person nearby.

Then you need to apologize to everyone for shitting on other people because of youre own personal problems.

Dont bring your personal baggage into an unrelated thread, and dont turn an unrelated thread into your own personal dumping ground for unrelated problems.

Exactly what I am trying to do now.

snip

It, however, does not excuse shitting on a concept just because of their own personal case.

You don't start hating on black people if you were mugged by one black person, right? Of course not. Well, ok, dumb people do, but that's not the point.

Your example in no way compares to hers. She didn't say that all parents are like hers, or even that all families are like hers, but simply that the idea that just because you are born into a family you will receive nothing but love and support (again, the Cleavers example of "Family Values") is not a true one, and gives a compelling example of why. She didn't attack your family, or say that yours is any worse because of hers.

Yes, for which I have apologised to them.

While I understand that their situation may be different from mine, calling a family bullshit, because it implies connection by blood is bullshit in itself.

"Connection by blood" is bullshit and that's not what makes a family.

Disagreeing with first part of your post, agreeing with the second one.

SNIP

As I stated higher up, I've misread and I apologise for that.

SNIP

- My situation is not "Well, I'm fine, so everyone else should be, right?", but rather "I wish I had your problem, people".

- What I meant in my post about children is that many vocals, who advocate for their version of equality, do not accept your point of view unless you are a member of mentioned groups OR have a friend/relative like this.

- I am talkiing about fucking Ukraine with our cursed to their goddamn bones morons that think that only thing you need to do to make better country is to jump on the main street, wave flags and trash a few foreign banks, and after that back to throwing bottles on the street, spitting on the ground etc., etc., more important examples included. We have a good country and nice people, but many of them (especially the older generation) are so stuck in that socialistic point of view that they don't even understand how to function without big brother and, since they've lost this oh so precious potentially high pension, they tend to automatically think that return to big brother is inevitable and necceccary. Obviously, they spread this idea, which many here (especially young generation, born after Soviet regime) do not agree with. And they also think that lack of big brother means lack of rules and instead of trying to help our society to create proper mechanisms that must exist in normal country, shit on everything and live in their own shit and make others (concequentually) live in shit with them, because they are comfortable like this.
Don't tell me that Canada has the same problems, I won't believe it.

Otherwise, I agree with you.

 

[Something Amyss]

You were about to share some of your saucier erotica with me, I think.

I don't usually get into sauces. I'm more into creams and...that's not what you meant, is it?

Oh yeah, I remember what this thread is about...Family Values.


I adored Wednesday growing up. Which may actually make me a good case for why parents shouldn't split up. In fact, looking back on things, I'd like to reverse my position. Parents, don't let your kids grow up to be like me.

 

[DefunctTheory]

Spoiler

You were about to share some of your saucier erotica with me, I think.

I don't usually get into sauces. I'm more into creams and...that's not what you meant, is it?

Oh yeah, I remember what this thread is about...Family Values.

Spoiler

I adored Wednesday growing up. Which may actually make me a good case for why parents shouldn't split up. In fact, looking back on things, I'd like to reverse my position. Parents, don't let your kids grow up to be like me.

The Addams Family is an interesting subject to bring up here. The original premise of it was that they were not a typical family and didn't have the same values as everyone else, yet the all functioned perfectly well and loved each other.

I'd go more into it, but I'm never keen on forum discussions typed on my phone.

Also, yes, that's not quite the sauce I meant.

 

[Parasondox]

So, why the fuck in the Western world if someone does something a bit taboo, a threesome, swinging, being gay, giving a homeless person money, it breaks "family values" and the sort.

I don't think I've ever heard anyone say that charity and charitable donations to homeless people breaks family values. Maybe I just don't roam in the right circles to hear such things but still. Never heard that particular point come up.

That bit was a joke. A silly thing I do.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

In fairness, we are part of an active plot to destroy said society. Whoops, did I say that out loud?

That's okay ... even if we get thwarted destroying society, we can at least be safe in our plans for destroying civilization itself by having loving LGBTQ/single parents simply raising children. I have to imagine that in Zontar's head transgender people must be like Rita Repulsa. Which is fun, because I'd totally rock that hat ... but somewhere along the lines loving transgender parent gets trumped by abusive alcoholic who broke their children's teeth ....

That's ... ehhhh. Really, really depressing.

It kind of reminds me of that pastor who was advocating punching children in the face if they came out as gay or acted effetely at all? It's like... You've just proven why you're the most terrible parent in the world, and the reason why we need Child Protection Services in the first place. What healthy parent punches kids? What neuroses do you have that would make you punch children? At the very least why aren't you in a psychiatric facility?

 

[CyanCat47_v1legacy]

Dear Mister K, when people say they want two men (or two women) to be allowed to marry each other, it is not an assault on your freedom to marry a (consenting) woman.

...Aaand, I think that about covers it. If you can accept that sort of principle, then no, we won't have a problem.

Because politically, "family values" has never been about supporting traditional families, it's always been about denying non-traditional families. And tolerance (in this context) has never been about denying traditional families, it's always been about allowing non-traditional families.

Off-topic: Don't forget to quote, please.
On-Topic: I understand all of that. My, lets call it anger, wasn't aimed at people who say that it is not so. It was aimed at those edgelords in this thread that are all like "family is overrated" "I am so much better without my family" "I am superior to those who have a family".

I am a firm believer in equality. In actual equality, without quotas for minorities, without witch hunts, etc, etc. However people that I've already described in my OP (people that say that all men should die, for example) piss me right off. They don't want equality. I am not sorry for sounding sexist right now when I say that when I look at photos of people (mostly women) who scream about genocide based on a gender principle aren't really attractive. They want vengeance. And revenge almost never brings common good. Or they are just morons, who knows. In short, they bastardize my belief in equality.

historically feminist movements have been relatively peaceful. with the exception of soviet russia no country achieved voting rights for women with a revolution and the russian revolution wasn't primariy feministic. in fact after the innitial revolts in petrograd many of the revolutionary soldiers became guilty of rape and sexual assult. while groups like the sufferagettes have existed and possibly exist today they are usually a minority. before WW1 there was a massive peaceful demonstration for vthe vote for women. 500000 people showed up to participate. later the sufferagettes organized a violent mob to go throw rocks at parliment. it consisted of about 500. in general womens rights have been promoted in peaceful and civil ways.

 

[Mister K]

Snip

Yes, I vented yesterday and had slept already. Now I see what you actually meant. I apologise and agree. And I'll be honest: my initial reaction was mostly because of my tiredness and, well, my experience with reading your other posts, which sometimes striked me as a bit too liberal. Again, in this case at the very least, I stand corrected.

Thats fair. I post tired and cranky too sometimes, usually regretting some if not all of what I posted. If it means anything I wouldn't have joined the dogpile on you if not for you specifically citing my post.

Well, don't let it bother you too much. At the end of the day, I am just some random guy on the Internet. I am not, I'll be frank, someone you keep close to your heart (a friend, lover, spouse, coleague), right? So, even if you did say (type) something as a part of "dogpile", in the end, you would not only not wound someone you actually cherish, you wouldn't have wounded a person (me) in general, because both of us, me and you, are strangers to each other. We have crossed our ways here, maybe we'll do so again sometime in the future, but that is it. You can't possibly control what you say (type) at all times. I say it is better to let it go sometimes on forums and calm down, then keep it in and lash out on a friend, or a lover. Or a boss.

I am not saying that it should be a norm to be disrespectful to others just because we only see avatars and letters. What I AM saying, however, is that what you type on the Internet (on forums with no actual names, at least) doesn't have as much of an impact on others as in real life, so if a person really needs to lose cool, then it is better to do it there. I mean, I am not going to cry if "xxxL33tBettyGOJIRAxxx" will call me an asshole, but I will be sulky if I'll have a fight with a friend.

 

[Mister K]

SNIP

I don't want to open this can of worms again so I'll just say that while I agree with you, in our modern times this seem to be far from truth. Or the radical vocal minority creating an illusion that it is so. Hopefully, it is the latter.

 

[Something Amyss]

The Addams Family is an interesting subject to bring up here. The original premise of it was that they were not a typical family and didn't have the same values as everyone else, yet the all functioned perfectly well and loved each other.

I'd go more into it, but I'm never keen on forum discussions typed on my phone.

Also, yes, that's not quite the sauce I meant.

Yeah, that's not lost on me. However, the image of a creepy girl who beheads her dolls also isn't lost on me, so I went for that one.

*snap snap*

One of the things that always struck me was how romanticised the Addams' lifestyle was, just...flipped on its head.

On the other hand, one of my early musical influences was a man who once turned to dead pigeons on camera and dryly remarked, "you're not eating." So my metric is skewed.

Also, I'm afraid my sauce is weak. Weaksauce, I dub it.

Rita Repulsa

Ooh! Ooh! Dibs on the cone bra!

Though think about the comparison. It means that we're going to be fought by a group of ethnically diverse superheroes. How did we end up here?

but somewhere along the lines loving transgender parent gets trumped by abusive alcoholic who broke their children's teeth ....

That's ... ehhhh. Really, really depressing.

Yeeeeeeeeah. Not surprising, though. I remember these beats from the 90s with gay parents. Trans parents laregely weren't on the radar here, or I'm blocking it out. Probably that second one. Anyway, I remember a fuckton of people defending biological parents while opposing gay adoption, even if the biolkogical parents were awful, like...

It kind of reminds me of that pastor who was advocating punching children in the face if they came out as gay or acted effetely at all? It's like... You've just proven why you're the most terrible parent in the world, and the reason why we need Child Protection Services in the first place. What healthy parent punches kids? What neuroses do you have that would make you punch children? At the very least why aren't you in a psychiatric facility?

Sadly, I bet a lot of them, given the stories I know from LGBT youth in this country.

I suspect part of why he's not in a mental facility is this seems to be normalised in several countries.

And to bring this full circle, this is what I think of when I think "family values." Because I've known many a moral and upright person to kick out or just kick their queer child.

 

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

Spoiler

You were about to share some of your saucier erotica with me, I think.

I don't usually get into sauces. I'm more into creams and...that's not what you meant, is it?

Oh yeah, I remember what this thread is about...Family Values.

Spoiler

I adored Wednesday growing up. Which may actually make me a good case for why parents shouldn't split up. In fact, looking back on things, I'd like to reverse my position. Parents, don't let your kids grow up to be like me.

The Addams Family is an interesting subject to bring up here. The original premise of it was that they were not a typical family and didn't have the same values as everyone else, yet the all functioned perfectly well and loved each other.

I'd go more into it, but I'm never keen on forum discussions typed on my phone.

Also, yes, that's not quite the sauce I meant.

It's weird how very normal Gomez and Mortica Addams seem, indeed Gomez is one the most passionately in-love with his wife characters I've ever seen.

 

[mduncan50]

Snip

Yes, I vented yesterday and had slept already. Now I see what you actually meant. I apologise and agree. And I'll be honest: my initial reaction was mostly because of my tiredness and, well, my experience with reading your other posts, which sometimes striked me as a bit too liberal. Again, in this case at the very least, I stand corrected.

Thats fair. I post tired and cranky too sometimes, usually regretting some if not all of what I posted. If it means anything I wouldn't have joined the dogpile on you if not for you specifically citing my post.

Anyone got a peace pipe to pass around?