Why I Don’t Talk About the Nuclear Family – Part Doodle

nuclear-family-copy

I have a post in my mind that for some reason is refusing to come out. If you wanna help me out, it’ll be much appreciated 😀

What do you make of this doodle?

Advertisements

21 Responses so far »

  1. 1

    crankosaur said,

    Since when has the nuclear family been around since the beginning of time? It’s more of a twentieth century invention.

  2. 2

    marytracy9 said,

    It’s just a comic, crankosaur, so it’s not really “accurate”. It’s not likely that the nuclear family will drop dead on the 2015 either. 😛

  3. 3

    Polly Styrene said,

    Like most of us you are sentimentally attached to the idea of the nuclear family?

  4. 4

    marytracy9 said,

    Good one, Polly, but that’s not really what I was trying to say. Though just for being your awesome self, you get another try free of charge 🙂

    (I must suck at doodling :P)

  5. 5

    bonobobabe said,

    What I get from the doodle is that our culture is so committed to the supremacy of the nuclear family model, and we’ve also villified every other way of life, that we wouldn’t know what to replace it with if it were ever to go bye-bye.

    Also, our entire infrastructure would crumble, b/c if we had, for example, several wage-earning adults living in one abode, the contribution from each of them wouldn’t need to be as large, so we’d have large numbers of the populace choosing less-demanding jobs, less well-compensated jobs, and even part-time work, and we’d have more leisure and less willingness to put in 16 hour days. We’d start homeschooling our children since state-run schools are crap at teaching and even crappier at keeping the bullies away from our children. We’d have more free time to riot in the streets and hold rallies to protest things.

    The powers-that-be would be soiling themselves, b/c we wouldn’t be in a work-induces stupor and in a state of helpless anger all the time. We’d have the time to do something about it.

  6. 6

    marytracy9 said,

    YAY, Bonobobabe!!! That’s exactly what I meant!

    “our culture is so committed to the supremacy of the nuclear family model, and we’ve also villified every other way of life, that we wouldn’t know what to replace it with if it were ever to go bye-bye.”

    And for the rest of the comment, I have never seen it that way. Very interesting! Thanks, YOU WIN! 😀

    (I have now regained confidence in my (f)artistic skillz)

  7. 7

    Polly Styrene said,

    Also, our entire infrastructure would crumble, b/c if we had, for example, several wage-earning adults living in one abode, the contribution from each of them wouldn’t need to be as large, so we’d have large numbers of the populace choosing less-demanding jobs, less well-compensated jobs, and even part-time work, and we’d have more leisure and less willingness to put in 16 hour days.

    Not in the UK, property prices are so high you need several wage earning adults living in one abode. The ‘stay at home’ mother is largely a myth.

  8. 8

    bonobobabe said,

    Yeah, I never thought of that. The powers-that-be will want to keep people prisoners of paid employment so the prices will just get higher.

  9. 9

    marytracy9 said,

    I dunno. I understood BBB’s comment to mean more than a couple of wage-earning adults and several children under the same roof, as is the case of extended families living together. In that case the contribution from each of them wouldn’t need to be as large.

  10. 10

    Polly Styrene said,

    Yup but that doesn’t really happen anyway. It’s only peeps in ‘lurve’ who want to cohabit. For the rest of us, the shared house is a student nightmare we want to get out of into our own place ASAP.

  11. 11

    Rebekka said,

    “Yup but that doesn’t really happen anyway. It’s only peeps in ‘lurve’ who want to cohabit.”

    O rly? You might tell my parents that, they currently have three (non-related except by marriage) wage-earning adults and one non-wage-earning adult living in their house, and none of them are students. They’ve also recently had my grandmother living there part of the time, and currently have a house guest. So they’re not looking v nuclear for a start.

    I’d then add that before we all moved out, there were seven wage-earning adults living there, three of them not related to us. And then there’s my other grandmother, who lived with my Aunt, Uncle and cousins for several years before she died.

    And my two great-aunts (sisters) who lived together most of their adult lives.

    And various adult friends, who have long since left their student days behind, but who like having a housemate (most of the time!) or who need one to help pay the mortgage.

    I can think of dozens of examples off the top of my head! Of course it really happens – and it reveals a distinctly privileged viewpoint to claim it does not.

  12. 12

    crankosaur said,

    Aahhhh, okay… now I get it!

  13. 13

    Level Best said,

    Well, in America during the 1800’s, everyone was looking for “40 acres and a mule” so they could homestead. Homesteads tended to hold several generations of relatives. By the 1900’s it economically suited those elites who owned the country/world to break us into nuclear families. By now, I think we’re too indoctrinated to be consumeristic, stuff-acquiring individuals (“Get off my lawn!”) to move towards extended households by choice. But you know? If grown women could share homes or buildings and help out each other with child- or elder-care and whatever the singletons needed, too, individual poverty could be alleviated. Oh, if only. And that damn “lurve” thing. It’s something to think about.

  14. 14

    Level Best said,

    Oh, kiss-ass cartoon, marytracy. It obviously got me to thinking. 🙂

  15. 15

    Level Best said,

    Rats! I mean KICK-ASS cartoon. Typing got ahead of my thinking.

  16. 16

    marytracy9 said,

    lol, thanks, Level Best. I saw “kick-ass” the first time I read it, anyways.

  17. 17

    Polly Styrene said,

    “An Englishman’s home is his castle”

    Rebekah. In the UK (not the USA, please don’t assume everyone lives in the USA, that’s cultural imperialism) home ownership is considered to be the only ‘respectable’ way of having a home. Renting is positioned as socially undesirable – hence the rental market is highly priced and low quality. Living in shared homes is positioned as undesirable and less than ideal, and only for those – usually young people – who cannot buy their own home. It’s very unlikely that wage earning adults, who are not in nuclear families, will voluntarily want to live in a shared home, instead people knock themselves out to buy homes of their own, that’s why we have such high property prices.

    This is nothing to do with a ‘privileged viewpoint’. I’m describing prevailing cultural standards in the UK not mine.

    But FWIW, I would HATE to live in a shared home. I was ecstatic when I got my own house and knew my living space was my own. I like being able to do what I want in my own space, and not having to live by other people’s standards all the time.

  18. 18

    sophie said,

    Shared accomodation can (sometimes) work very well, but it should be kept in mind that it can also be grounds for eviction. Especially if there’s a tenancy involced – though I wouldn’t be at all surprised if a couple of complaints from the neighbours broke up a cosy, owned home that housed several adults.
    That’s just part of the world we live in. It’s considered ‘unhygienic’ or something.

    My sister has just moved out of that extended family situation. She sez it was crzy (but then, she’s UK raised and believes in supporting her own.

    There’s got to be a compromise somewhere… Community, without invading space or over-riding the decisions a person makes for themself.

  19. 20

    Rebekka said,

    “Rebekah. In the UK (not the USA, please don’t assume everyone lives in the USA, that’s cultural imperialism) home ownership is considered to be the only ‘respectable’ way of having a home.”

    (1) my name is Rebekka, not Rebekah. And I would never assume everyone lives is the USA – because I don’t, for a start. And my comment didn’t mention a country. So where do you get that from, exactly?

    “Renting is positioned as socially undesirable – hence the rental market is highly priced and low quality. Living in shared homes is positioned as undesirable and less than ideal, and only for those – usually young people – who cannot buy their own home. It’s very unlikely that wage earning adults, who are not in nuclear families, will voluntarily want to live in a shared home, instead people knock themselves out to buy homes of their own, that’s why we have such high property prices. ”

    “Positioned” – by whom, exactly? That’s why I say it’s a privileged viewpoint – there are people for whom home ownership is nothing but a pipedream, and for whom it always will be. Assuming that home ownership is the norm, is “positioned” as such, is clearly a middle-class, priviliged view.

    “This is nothing to do with a ‘privileged viewpoint’. I’m describing prevailing cultural standards in the UK not mine. ”

    Hello, “prevailing cultural standards” ARE privilege! See Feminism 101’s summary of privilege – Privilege is: About how society accommodates you. It’s about advantages you have that you think are normal.

  20. 21

    marytracy9 said,

    Polly and Rebekka, you both seem to be in a pretty similar page. I think Polly meant that the dominant discourse presents renting as “undesirable” and owning as “the only real way to live”. It’s easy to understand why they do it: because it benefits the elites, which are the ones who set the dominant discourse to a large extent. You and I, Rebekka, may hate it, and every single person for whom buying a house is entirely out of reach may hate it. But we are not the ones setting the dominant discourse. Heck, most of the world’s population isn’t setting the dominant discourse! Otherwise thinks would look very different indeed.
    This is how I think the housing market goes. If everyone is buying, house prices will go up. Which means that the rich and powerful, who own more property, are better off. And since more houses being “bought” means less houses available for rent, the price os renting also goes up, which means that those who own property get more for it. Also, mortgages are a big weapon of social control. People are far less likely to strike and revolt for better wages and stuff if they are one mortgage payment away from ending on the street.


Comment RSS · TrackBack URI

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

%d bloggers like this: