Family Values -- Redux

[TheOlderGuy]

This is a mirror of a thread I started in the General Board, but I suspect that one will quickly become a pissing match between posters who just want to call stupid anyone with a conflicting point of view. So I thought I'd start it here as well, in the hopes of getting more thoughtful writing on the subject. You won't disappoint me, will you?

What, to you, are family values?

For many years we couldn’t get through an election without being hammered with the term, to the point where it lost much real meaning in a political context. And thankfully, this year everyone seems to be leaving it alone.

But what are they? To you, what kinds of things go into family values?

It could be a long list, and probably should be. Family is ultra-important. I guess I would start the list with the legendary “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Partially because we could ALL agree to that much.

Does our government offer to protect our lives, our liberty, and our pursuit of happiness? Do WE adequately protect them from the government? It’s certainly changed, at least in many technological ways, since that phrase was first written. There are new ways we must be vigilant. We live in a world where the interests of big business supercede not only the individual, but the government itself. The agencies that used to watch over corporate interests, and try to maintain a balance between making a profit, and protecting our lives, our liberties, and our ability to be happy, are all now pretty much run by corporate puppets. It’s no longer simply a matter of trusting those we elect to sincerely represent us. Those whom we elect must also understand the power structure of our country, and the world, and be willing to sacrifice their OWN self-interest.

How do we protect our family values from this concentration of power which has so changed our lives?

 

[nushu2]

It seems that family values has become synonomous with censorship, protectionism and religious morality.

My idea of family values is being able to support and nourish a family for average people. Over the past couple decades, the middle and lower incomes ( I hate the word, classes). have increasing difficulty providing adequate housing and time. Blue collar, trades people and small business are being forced into poverty while executives are getting 100% raises and bonuses. It's something I like to call "selective inflation".

Home prices, cars, gas, food have all doubled in the past 15 years but not wages for most. I do not look to government for answers. I see the government as inept or the tool for the powerful.

I am a tradesperson and have managed to keep up by elevating myself to the top of my profession. Still, I will never be able to obtain the success of those that started a decade before me and my future looks bleak, if the trend continues. The only alternative is to put my future and family at risk in my own business. The main reason I chose this profession was to provide financial security.

The idea that "you have to risk it to make it" is nothing new but it's becoming "you have to risk it to survive".

Sorry about my speechifying, but your question hit home.

 

[TheOlderGuy]

please don't apologize.
that's exactly the kind of thoughtfulness i had hoped for.

i grew up in a time when the struggle
that my parents had to cope with
was at least a struggle they could make,
and one which enabled us to
live comfortably and with our values intact.

my feeling is that it is much harder now,
and nearly impossible without
a two-income household,
and potentially some serious compromise
in the values we believe in.

solving the problem is complex,
but i think we've been duped
these past few decades,
by leaders who want us to
"look over here"
and pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

 

[CrazyyAngel]

Does our government offer to protect our lives, our liberty, and our pursuit of happiness? Do WE adequately protect them from the government?

Do you really want to get people started about your government and liberty and stuff?

CA

 

[Guest]

It seems that family values has become synonomous with censorship, protectionism and religious morality.

I think this of the slogan too. I'm nearly 58 and I don't recall ever hearing about 'family' values before it became a political phrase. I grew up with mere values, the human kind. I cannot even think what I would define as 'family' values.

Governments seem to try and use the idea to bolster Christian heterosexual marriages/families, so "god" only knows what it means to non-xian or non-white families. I grew up in a Mexican family in Detroit and know it was a very different experience than any other, but I cannot say what peculiar value there was in it outside what I might say about my parents and extended family in particular.

Perdita

 

[Lord DragonsWing]

I don't think family values depend on politcal beliefs or religion. It's up to the individual.

To me, family values are about teaching your children what is wrong and right. Not by the bible, but by your personal beliefs. It's teaching them to think for themselves. Not to be influenced by anyone else. It's arguing with the one you love and making up. It's being loyal to each other and passing that down to the children. It's about happiness and success for the family. If the family is happy, then it's a success.

 

[doormouse]

Carrying on from what a few others have said, 'family values' wasn't a term used when growing up.

To me, family values begin and end in the home. Schools contribute, but the real meaning comes from what is passed down and instilled into our kids.

I grew up in a large family. Dad worked hard to support ten kids, and we were Never wanting for anything. We had everything. That is a trait I've inherited, and thank my father for that. Work hard and you 'can' have.

For us in Australia, working and being a single mother don't go together unless you're willing to sacrifice 60c in the dollar to the tax man. That is giving kids of today the wrong idea.

I get more money from the government than I would working full-time. What's that telling our kids? I work part-time, because I can't afford to lose any more money in tax.

Kind of got side-tracked, but the message is clear that 'family values' is a party policy to win votes and influence people.

Maybe it's different here.

 

[nushu2]

There is a word ... anomy.
It means a loss of dreams and unattainable goals. I had to face it when I dropped out of university (for starvation reasons). My identity was tied up in my future and I had no idea who I was anymore. I lost my moral compass. It was a crisis in values and could've gone either way.

It seems, more and more, that the "Great American Dream" is out of reach for most people by virtuous means. I'm not talking about being the next Donald Trump, just a simple house and common luxuries. People are saying to themselves, "What's the point. Good doesn't pay. "

I think that's a the main problem of the inner cities.

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

How does a Family’s values differ from a Human’s values? How should it?


Why would “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” be more important to someone living within a family, than it is for someone living within any other social group, or in none?

Laws should be derived from ethics, not religious dogma, to protect the entire population equally.

There are certain rules which must be enforced to protect minors from adult (and minor) predators, the same is true for the ill or physically handicapped, the feebleminded, and the insane. The protections and prohibitions of these rules, however, are required to protect those special cases be they singletons, in families, or other groups.

Family Values [TM] is a label used to discriminate in favor of a conservative Christian lifestyle, against other religions, other social and/or sexual orientations, and other racial groups.

The reason behind the label’s ubiquitous employment, is that it is used to mask the increasing demand by a single minority to usurp the protection, by law, to favor their particular interests.

Approached more thoughtfully, it is obvious that they are demanding special dispensation in law for their religions tenets — a condition denied to them by the Constitution.


That said, new laws and regulations to safeguard individuals from both traditional as well as newly-developed or newly-understood threats from technical, environmental, or social forces would be far simpler to apply utilizing an unrestricted viewpoint, instead of through the usual barrage of clamoring demands from special vested interests.





> > VB

- $0.02
______

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Family values?

Hmmm.

Those socially, legally, and possibly religiously supported norms by which the classic nuclear family is promoted in hopes of producing upstanding and productive citizens who will assist the community continuing the next generation of citizens in the same standard.

Human values? Much harder to define (assuming they exist at all). But, if I were to define them... they'd resemble "family values" to such an extent that I'm unsure that a seperate designation is warranted.

 

[GingerV]

I'm not trying to get up in your face, Joe. This is an honest question. What on earth is classic about the "classic nuclear family?" I presume you mean the Ozzie and Harriet model (for lack of a better short hand ). And why should that be protected?

The values I learned from my family were practical ones, don't spend what you don't have to, education is ALWAYS worth the money and effort, clean up your own mess. As far as love, compassion and forgiveness went....well, for one reason or another I learned them elsewhere. MY values are a combination of what I learned in the family, and what I learned outside it. The good I got from my family, I'm grateful for. But maybe because of the way it worked, I don't think it's a given that the values a family passes on to the next generation should always be valued (hatred, intollerance, bigotry, critical judgement) or protected.

As far as the political phrase "family values" I think it's genius. A politician can stand up and promise exactly what everyone in front of him wants, without knowing what it IS. Everyone presumes that their values are the "family values" he's talking about. And whom has he taken a chance of pissing off? No-one. You can't win by running against "family values", because people by in large are still going to want to assume that the generalization means them. We all, basically, think we're typical in some way. It's like campaigning in favor of puppies and sunlight.

As far as the valuing families, I think it really is getting tougher for people to live the American Dream. But while I may get shouted at for this, I think that may be because as a society, we've let Madison Avenue move the bar. My grandparents neither had nor wanted a television in every room. My grandparents did not get a new car every 4 years. Hell, they didn't buy a used car every four years. They bought their FIRST new car in their 80s. My grandmother, bless her, does not know what Prada is. I'm not saying everyone's buying it (they're not), but she didn't feel the LACK of it. And because they did not want what they could not have, they were happier. The problem is, Madison Avenue can't sell us something we don't want...they have to convince us we're lacking to keep the consumer economy alive.

Don't get me wrong, I think there are BIG things that can be done to shift some of the burdens off the modern middle and lower classes (and while I too hate the word, I won't pretend it's not what we've gone and created in our society). But I imagine this wasn't intended to be a thread about socialization of medicine or tax burdens. So I'm gonna leave that out. I just think that part of the problem is what we judge to be failure these days.

Off to put on my asbestos undies now....

G

 

[nushu2]

Sorry Ginger

No flames from me. I already considered your argument but I didn't want to temper a good rant. Send a picture of that asbestos underwear.

 

[nushu2]

Not a flame, just a little hot breath

We do live in a time of incredible luxury and rampant consumerism but I worry that our children will be the first generation in recent times to be worse off than their parents.

 

[GingerV]

Not only not a flame, nushu, but an interesting point.

You're right, our children may be worse of materially than we are/were. I'm still questioning whether that's a bad thing, though. Provided, of course, that their priorities shift along with the economy. If they decide to stop chasing the dollar (because they can't win) and go back to spending time with their families and patching their jeans....have they lost?

Just stirring the pot .

G

 

[Black Tulip]

Funny, my first reaction to this thread was: solidarity.

On second thought, we don't have the term family values in my country, but the content is the same I think.

The leading christian political party (after WWII 40 years in government in one coalition or another, a short break, but back since 10 years) started using the term 'normen en waarden' which roughly translates to 'moral standards and values'.

And yes, that means the family is the cornerstone of society. The christian, married kind with preferably as many children as god wants to grant you. Color is not so much an issue here, religion is far more important.

That hits a very sore spot since I am not christian, not married, have a kid and I am making a valuable contribution to society; I earn my own bread and always have. What's more I think I gave society a very decent young man as a new member. I consider that my biggest contribution.

Like a lot of others have said, the values I got from my family are human values like solidarity with weaker people, loyalty and caring and an open mind towards different cultures and different values.

 

[oggbashan]

UK perspective

'Family Values' or 'Back to Basics' have been devalued as a political campaign because it seems that every politician that puts forward such an idea is discovered by the popular press to be bonking his Secretary, researcher or whomever.

What is true is that successive governments in the UK have devalued the idea of heterosexual marriage by removing any tax or other incentives that supported families and adding disincentives.

The current Labour Government have introduced taxation on pension contributions, removing several billions of pounds from people's savings for their future despite pensions already being devalued by their other fiscal activities. Pension funds are facing deficits that have been made by government. The eventual pension payouts will be taxed (again) by government.

Most UK savings schemes now pay less than inflation. Invest a pound today and with interest it will be worth less when you cash it in than when you invested it - and you will have paid tax on the interest! Then the government complains that people are spending, not saving.

If a young woman has a child/children but no income, she will be entitled to benefits from the State and housing from the local authority if she has nowhere to live. If she marries, or co-habits with the father, she will lose much of her benefits because he is assumed to be contributing to her household expenses - she wishes! If they are both unemployed (or unemployable through disability) they will be worse off together than apart.

Genuine 'scroungers' are a minority of benefit claimants but action against those few usually hurts the most vulnerable in society who do not have the resources to fight the system.

The politicians in this country are already arguing for the next election about 'supporting the family' yet most damage to 'the family' has been done by the same politicians.

Og

 

[TheOlderGuy]

WOW!

i'll have to hang out here more often. you guys don't disappoint. i wish i had the time right now to repsond to what everyone has said, cause i liked it all. it's exactly the kind of thoughtful dialogue i had hoped for, and i understand where every bit of it comes from, to the extent that common experiences allow.

so far the posters at the general board have been similarly well-spoken. i expect that eventually the flaming will begin there, and we'll get off-topic. do any of you mind if i quote you there from time to time to get things refocused?

family values -- it IS a made-up phrase, but a brilliant one, as Ginger pointed out, because everyone had a warm fuzzy feeling of what it meant. now it's become a flashpoint phrase, because so many feel it's been used in a wicked way, to undercut the "human" values that we all thought they were talking about.

how do we take our values back again, back to our family, whoever they are in each individual case?

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by GingerV
I'm not trying to get up in your face, Joe. This is an honest question. What on earth is classic about the "classic nuclear family?" I presume you mean the Ozzie and Harriet model (for lack of a better short hand ). And why should that be protected?

Well, classic as in "of tradition"... if I am mistaken that the American Dream includes the classic nuclear family, I retract--but I don't think I'm inaccurate. I made no value judgements on the "nuclear family", only that when we talk about "family values", we're talking about that notion.

I think its telling that commercials, television, movies, etc... all reflect the nuclear family as a classic thing.

Why should it be protected? I couldn't say. I don't recall saying that I agreed with or believed rational the notion of "family values", only that if I were to define them--that would be the definition.

Were I pressed to defend it? It should be protected because it is an efficient way to continue stable population growth and learning environments.

 

[Weird Harold]

I'm not trying to get up in your face, Joe. This is an honest question. What on earth is classic about the "classic nuclear family?" I presume you mean the Ozzie and Harriet model (for lack of a better short hand ). And why should that be protected?

Personally, I think "Little House on the Prairie" or "The Waltons" are more the fictional model of "family values" tha politicians want us to think of -- hardscrabble families that made do with what thy had and were held together by strong and wise father figures.

"Ozzie and Harriet" were upper middle class and while they were a "perfect family" they didn't have to cope with the sort of problems that many families today have to cope with; the Ingles and Waltons are the "perfect" examples of how to cope with today's world with "old-fashioned family values."

In other words, they are the kind of "golden age" nuclear families that put "family" first and were too proud to accept "charity" or "government handouts" but not too proud to extend "charity" to family and friends.

After all, if the politicians can revive that kind of personal pride that disdains government assistance then they can reduce the budget dedicated to "government handouts" without seeming to be so cold-hearted as to want to reduce them.

Families like the Ingles and Waltons were never the "norm" but multi-generation nuclear families like them used to be more common than they are now and most provided the "safety nets" that government has taken over since those simpler times.

In Political speak "family values" is, in part, a phrase that means "we can't afford to keep the trough filled" so you'll have to sponge off your family insted of the government.

 

[Wicked-N-Erotic]

To me, family values means simply teaching morals, respect, and responsibility to my children. Which in turn if I have done my job efficiently they will in turn teach the same to their children. It also rubs off on their friends and so the cycle goes.

So far I think I've done a good job. They are resppectful to their elders, they know right from wrong and they have learned at their young ages of 12 and 9 the value of a dollar through earning it rather than having it just given to them.

Wicked

 

[Guest]

Well, classic as in "of tradition"... if I am mistaken that the American Dream includes the classic nuclear family, I retract--but I don't think I'm inaccurate. I made no value judgements on the "nuclear family", only that when we talk about "family values", we're talking about that notion.

I think its telling that commercials, television, movies, etc... all reflect the nuclear family as a classic thing.

Why should it be protected? I couldn't say. I don't recall saying that I agreed with or believed rational the notion of "family values", only that if I were to define them--that would be the definition.

Were I pressed to defend it? It should be protected because it is an efficient way to continue stable population growth and learning environments.

Hmmm. Well, Joe, I must respectfully disagree.

It was a classic TV model, the two cheerful parents and two fresh-faced (caucasian) kids, the dad whistling off to work while mom waited at home in her house dress, pearls, freshly-pressed apron and high heels.

That image was and is insulting to many. Because it was seriously implied that families who did not fit neatly into that mold were somehow lacking.

But it isn't being presented as the norm today. Far from it. Today you see many different combinations of family groupings, different situations, people of color - it is more realistic.

Some people may look upon the classic term of "nuclear" family with nostalgia, I suppose. But whenever I hear the term I just roll my eyes.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by sweetsubsarahh
Hmmm. Well, Joe, I must respectfully disagree.

It was a classic TV model, the two cheerful parents and two fresh-faced (caucasian) kids, the dad whistling off to work while mom waited at home in her house dress, pearls, freshly-pressed apron and high heels.

That image was and is insulting to many. Because it was seriously implied that families who did not fit neatly into that mold were somehow lacking.

But it isn't being presented as the norm today. Far from it. Today you see many different combinations of family groupings, different situations, people of color - it is more realistic.

Some people may look upon the classic term of "nuclear" family with nostalgia, I suppose. But whenever I hear the term I just roll my eyes.

I don't have a preference either way, myself. I don't think you disagree with my point--I think you disagree with what "family values" has become. I mean, correct me if I'm wrong.

My only point is that when politicians, media, etc. use the term "family values", they are including a lot of things in that vehicle--up to and including the classic nuclear family. That the nuclear family isn't all its cracked up to be or that there are other values in family other than that ooesn't disagree with my point--it disagrees with the motives for using the term.

Kind of like what do they mean by "war on terror"... well, they mean a bunch of things that aren't exactly accurate, but their not being accurate doesn't change what they mean.

My point is simply that "Family Values" is a buzzword that includes "Mom, Dad, two kids and a dog"-esque things... whether that's really a standard we live by or choose to enforce is not something I can speak intelligently about.

 

[Guest]

Yes - I think we do agree.

Political buzz words are annoying!

(And all politicians should be jailed. Immediately!)

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by sweetsubsarahh
Yes - I think we do agree.

Political buzz words are annoying!

(And all politicians should be jailed. Immediately!)

As a logician and a philosopher, I really, really hate buzzwords.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Family values, said the man raised by a single mother who has a half-sister who was raised by the state and has a juve recors, what do they mean to me? Gosh, let me think. I have a feeling that the stepford family is out of the fuckin' question.

That said, here's what it means to me. Love.

It means a family that loves each other. The mom and mom, dad and dad, mom and dad, mom, mom, and dad, dad, dad, and mom, or whatever collection of parents must love each other earnestly before starting a family and it must be genuine on both sides or else the kid will have only one parent to aid him.

If that collapses as it will in a world love deficient that focuses so much on the importance of everyone forming a family or not, the more important bond is between child and parent(s). There needs to be a love that encompasses them personally. There needs to be mutual feelings of love strong enough that moving to college, divorces, deaths, coming outs, etc... don't shatter the bonds. For instance, I love my mother very much (not incestually you sick fuckers) because she was there as much as she could and loved me and went through hardship to try and give me the best chances she could. Because of her work, I learned to read faster than my classmates, was able to make it into a good university and pay for it, and she gave me the independence and strength to contain any dangerous effects of my MPS.

Any way, that's waht family values mean to me and any time the government plays with love, it means they are going to fuck it up. See above of the government raised child who was brought up like a commodity by psychologists and social workers. Without any bonds of love, she grew up shitty and will get shittier as she progresses in her adult life. Government record on love is also one of a myriad of reasons I believe that anti-gay bills are moronic and hate-based mistakes.

Anyway, That's my statement about it and now I hope you all forget all the personal shit I posted above so that I can avoid speaking about it ever again.