BLM nuclear family goal

[Anonymous]

Is the nuclear family a Western idea?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is the nuclear family a Western idea?

In many parts of the world nuclear+extended family is the norm.

I don’t know of any part where single parenting is the norm and preferred family type unit. It’s generally looked on as a hardship worldwide.

-
Raised by a single mother

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What does this mean? Why does the nuclear family need to be disrupted?

“We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.”

https://tennesseestar.com/2020/06/29/black-lives-matter-plan-to-disrupt-the-nuclear-family-and-dismantle-cisgender-privilege-gains-support-in-corporate-america/

An excuse for the lack of responsibility.

This: it is a push back against the observation that 70-some-odd percent of black kids are born out of wedlock.

So it’s an attempt to normalize this then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BLM isn't about disrupting families. It's about creating structures that recognize and support different kinds of families. They're disrupting a system that doesn't support all families equally. Lots of people are not living in a 2 parent, married nuclear family. Families that aren't nuclear families deserve support and recognition.

No one is saying that people can't have 2 parent, married nuclear families if they want them and can make it work.

It literally says “we DISRUPT the western prescribed nuclear family...”

It says " we disrupt the western prescribed nuclear family REQUIREMENT."

You need to read more carefully.

Where and how is this required?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BLM isn't about disrupting families. It's about creating structures that recognize and support different kinds of families. They're disrupting a system that doesn't support all families equally. Lots of people are not living in a 2 parent, married nuclear family. Families that aren't nuclear families deserve support and recognition.

No one is saying that people can't have 2 parent, married nuclear families if they want them and can make it work.

It literally says “we DISRUPT the western prescribed nuclear family...”

It says " we disrupt the western prescribed nuclear family REQUIREMENT."

You need to read more carefully.

Where and how is this required?

+1 I'm confused about the "prescribed/required" part. I thought everyone just did what works for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is the nuclear family a Western idea?

In many parts of the world nuclear+extended family is the norm.

I don’t know of any part where single parenting is the norm and preferred family type unit. It’s generally looked on as a hardship worldwide.

-
Raised by a single mother

I think pretty much in all cultures and societies globally the basic family structure is always the two parents with children. The difference is that more traditional societies also have extended larger families of aunts and uncles and cousins forming an extended support network. This was also much more common in the US till probably the 50s. Actually, it still is among may people. The weakening of the extended family network seems to go hand in hand with rapid industralization and modernization because people become more global and move around much more often. To use as an example, my mother grew up in your standard whitebread American family and through the 1960s she lived in a neighborhood along with her grandparents, several sets of aunts and uncles and cousins and second cousins and their families. Nowadays, everyone is scattered across the country.

I lived in the Middle East for years and was always impressed by the extremely strong extended family network among Middle Easterners (note the emphasis on family, which is not akin to a collection of strangers or complicated partnerships among adults forming a "village" for the children) and I do think many people in the US would benefit from having that kind of extended family network as there's a lot of loneliness in the modern West. But the BLM attack on the nuclear family is clearly meant to try to shift blame away from personal responsibility and to pretend that the high out of wedlock pregnancy rates isn't part of the problem especially for poorer African Americans. While I initially had sympathy for BLM at the onset, it's pretty clear the movement has morphed to blaming all cultural, economic and social problems on everything else to avoid accepting any element of personal responsibility as part of the progress needed.

[Anonymous]

Then they need to edit it to say “we want to disrupt the expectation that all families have two parents” or something along those lines. That’s not what it says. Their rhetoric is much more toned down than it used to be 2 years ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is the nuclear family a Western idea?

In many parts of the world nuclear+extended family is the norm.

I don’t know of any part where single parenting is the norm and preferred family type unit. It’s generally looked on as a hardship worldwide.

-
Raised by a single mother

I think pretty much in all cultures and societies globally the basic family structure is always the two parents with children. The difference is that more traditional societies also have extended larger families of aunts and uncles and cousins forming an extended support network. This was also much more common in the US till probably the 50s. Actually, it still is among may people. The weakening of the extended family network seems to go hand in hand with rapid industralization and modernization because people become more global and move around much more often. To use as an example, my mother grew up in your standard whitebread American family and through the 1960s she lived in a neighborhood along with her grandparents, several sets of aunts and uncles and cousins and second cousins and their families. Nowadays, everyone is scattered across the country.

I lived in the Middle East for years and was always impressed by the extremely strong extended family network among Middle Easterners (note the emphasis on family, which is not akin to a collection of strangers or complicated partnerships among adults forming a "village" for the children) and I do think many people in the US would benefit from having that kind of extended family network as there's a lot of loneliness in the modern West. But the BLM attack on the nuclear family is clearly meant to try to shift blame away from personal responsibility and to pretend that the high out of wedlock pregnancy rates isn't part of the problem especially for poorer African Americans. While I initially had sympathy for BLM at the onset, it's pretty clear the movement has morphed to blaming all cultural, economic and social problems on everything else to avoid accepting any element of personal responsibility as part of the progress needed.

Agree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is the nuclear family a Western idea?

In many parts of the world nuclear+extended family is the norm.

I don’t know of any part where single parenting is the norm and preferred family type unit. It’s generally looked on as a hardship worldwide.

-
Raised by a single mother

I think pretty much in all cultures and societies globally the basic family structure is always the two parents with children. The difference is that more traditional societies also have extended larger families of aunts and uncles and cousins forming an extended support network. This was also much more common in the US till probably the 50s. Actually, it still is among may people. The weakening of the extended family network seems to go hand in hand with rapid industralization and modernization because people become more global and move around much more often. To use as an example, my mother grew up in your standard whitebread American family and through the 1960s she lived in a neighborhood along with her grandparents, several sets of aunts and uncles and cousins and second cousins and their families. Nowadays, everyone is scattered across the country.

I lived in the Middle East for years and was always impressed by the extremely strong extended family network among Middle Easterners (note the emphasis on family, which is not akin to a collection of strangers or complicated partnerships among adults forming a "village" for the children) and I do think many people in the US would benefit from having that kind of extended family network as there's a lot of loneliness in the modern West. But the BLM attack on the nuclear family is clearly meant to try to shift blame away from personal responsibility and to pretend that the high out of wedlock pregnancy rates isn't part of the problem especially for poorer African Americans. While I initially had sympathy for BLM at the onset, it's pretty clear the movement has morphed to blaming all cultural, economic and social problems on everything else to avoid accepting any element of personal responsibility as part of the progress needed.

But why? It does not need to be that way. Women often stay with abusive men because the structure supports it. That is not better or healthier for children. Yet, that is what is expected so that is what is done. There needs to be an acceptance that often people need to divorce.

Also, single people should not feel pressured into getting married and marrying the wrong person because having a child on their own is wrong and the cultural structure of the family is betrayed when a woman/man has a child without a spouse.

[Anonymous]

Yes but what does the word salad of:

"We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable."

in the OP actual mean in a practical sense? Is there some policy goal that could work towards this? If so, what is it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BLM isn't about disrupting families. It's about creating structures that recognize and support different kinds of families. They're disrupting a system that doesn't support all families equally. Lots of people are not living in a 2 parent, married nuclear family. Families that aren't nuclear families deserve support and recognition.

No one is saying that people can't have 2 parent, married nuclear families if they want them and can make it work.

It literally says “we DISRUPT the western prescribed nuclear family...”

I read their website and it concerns me. Everyone is flying their flags and not realizing this is a Marxist group that hates America. Hopefully a more productive group focused on healing racial tensions is created. I also get the feeling that they are against heterosexual people
As well. Anyway read up before you sign on with them.

[Anonymous]

Let's remember that for decades Black or poor people were incentivized not to get married, as having another adult income affects welfare eligibility. Well, you say, why not just get off welfare? Remember that the reason so Black people tend to have a lower socioeconomic status is the lack of economic and educational opportunity, to which the government itself has certainly contributed. You also have a lack of affordable, safe childcare; often lack of reliable transportation, too. It's hard to think you'd rather send your kids to some cheap, maybe unsafe place so that you can have the pleasure of travelling an hour each way to some minimum wage job where you are on your feet all day. When the economy goes bad, it will affect you more, you could lose everything. Isn't it safer and doesn't it make more sense to keep your welfare and your housing voucher? Can't also forget that Black men are far more likely to be part of the criminal justice system, making them less attractive marriage partners. Well, just stop committing crimes, you say. Yes, I agree, but then, let's go back to the lack of economic and educational opportunity to do other things with your life, as well as the fact that when crimes are committed, black people often get a harsher punishment...leading to an ever more difficult ability to get a job because now you have a record...there's a reason that it's tough to break out of poverty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is the nuclear family a Western idea?

In many parts of the world nuclear+extended family is the norm.

I don’t know of any part where single parenting is the norm and preferred family type unit. It’s generally looked on as a hardship worldwide.

-
Raised by a single mother

I think pretty much in all cultures and societies globally the basic family structure is always the two parents with children. The difference is that more traditional societies also have extended larger families of aunts and uncles and cousins forming an extended support network. This was also much more common in the US till probably the 50s. Actually, it still is among may people. The weakening of the extended family network seems to go hand in hand with rapid industralization and modernization because people become more global and move around much more often. To use as an example, my mother grew up in your standard whitebread American family and through the 1960s she lived in a neighborhood along with her grandparents, several sets of aunts and uncles and cousins and second cousins and their families. Nowadays, everyone is scattered across the country.

I lived in the Middle East for years and was always impressed by the extremely strong extended family network among Middle Easterners (note the emphasis on family, which is not akin to a collection of strangers or complicated partnerships among adults forming a "village" for the children) and I do think many people in the US would benefit from having that kind of extended family network as there's a lot of loneliness in the modern West. But the BLM attack on the nuclear family is clearly meant to try to shift blame away from personal responsibility and to pretend that the high out of wedlock pregnancy rates isn't part of the problem especially for poorer African Americans. While I initially had sympathy for BLM at the onset, it's pretty clear the movement has morphed to blaming all cultural, economic and social problems on everything else to avoid accepting any element of personal responsibility as part of the progress needed.

But why? It does not need to be that way. Women often stay with abusive men because the structure supports it. That is not better or healthier for children. Yet, that is what is expected so that is what is done. There needs to be an acceptance that often people need to divorce.

Also, single people should not feel pressured into getting married and marrying the wrong person because having a child on their own is wrong and the cultural structure of the family is betrayed when a woman/man has a child without a spouse.

You are posing straw man questions. The old saying that blood is thicker than water is often true enough. Even my own experience with my family, which does not have the strong extended network of cousins and relatives, reminds me of how true this is. I see my neighbor's kids far more often than I see my own blood relatives, but when push comes to shove, family is family.

It is not akin to saying people can't have very good and valued friends who become closer than other family members (which is very common) but without the blood ties of family all other forms of relationships are much more structurally weaker. I have several friends from my "hippy" days in my young 20s who embraced the "open lifestyle" even with children and I've maintained contact over the years and what's telling is how unstable those kinds of arrangements are. Adults and partners are constantly coming and going. It's unquestionably far less permanent and stable in terms of adult figures and relationships than the conventional family unit. And the kids, I must admit, rarely turn out as stable either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes but what does the word salad of:

"We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable."

in the OP actual mean in a practical sense? Is there some policy goal that could work towards this? If so, what is it?

A friend of mine, who is black, recently posted on social media about adoption, and the criticism that the Black community receives for not adopting more children in need. She said we need to realize that black women/families regularly take in children in need and care for them as one of their own, outside of the legal adoption process. Sometimes temporarily, sometimes permanently. She said so many black kids have a sibling or cousin who is not a blood relative. This is the village that they refer to.

Today in wapo there was an article about an 88 year old DC man whose father was born into slavery. That’s how close we are to slavery and the fact that women and children and men were sold away from their families and had to form communities to help one another.

[Anonymous]

^
Here’s the article https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2020/07/27/slave-son-racism-george-floyd/?hpid=hp_hp-banner-low_sonofaslave-745am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory-ans