I haven't read the article yet, but have thought a lot that I kind of wish I had just stayed in the town where I grew up surrounded by family. My friends who have done that have so much easier lives. Even if they pay for full time child care, it's just so much easier when there is occasional help from grandparents, cousins, etc. And I think we're all happier with a network/community of people around us. That's so much easier to establish in a place where you have extended family.

Anonymous wrote:I have not read any of these articles. But I have told my husband (seriously only half joking) that I'm down for it if he wants another wife. I want veto power, since I'm the first wife, but if he can find a woman who will help take care of our kids (and I love babies, so go ahead and have more) and clean the house and/or work so I can do these things, let's do it. He said, then wouldn't you want another husband? Hell no. One is more than enough work, thankyouverymuch. That is when negotiations stalled.

The creator of Wonder Woman and his wife had an arrangement like this! In the 1920s and 30s.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/21855259-the-secret-history-of-wonder-woman

Juggling two full time careers is stressful on both parents, but not always enough to want to bring the grandparents (both parents and the in laws) into the mix if there are boundary issues, a history of abuse or dysfunction. There is a willingness to cut the nuclear family away from the extended relatives that has a solid basis to it. In previous eras, parents were stuck with those relationships that may have not been healthy mentally even if they were beneficial economically.

This was a good thought provoking article. I haven't been a fan of David Brooks latest stuff but this was pretty decent. It reminded me that as much as I bitch and grip about having to find help with the kids because of a lack of extended family in this area, I am fortunately to even have the option to afford to outsource any of this. Many many others are not so fortunate and must face levels of stress trying to keep the family afloat I can't even comprehend. No wonder so many marriages fail.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have not read any of these articles. But I have told my husband (seriously only half joking) that I'm down for it if he wants another wife. I want veto power, since I'm the first wife, but if he can find a woman who will help take care of our kids (and I love babies, so go ahead and have more) and clean the house and/or work so I can do these things, let's do it. He said, then wouldn't you want another husband? Hell no. One is more than enough work, thankyouverymuch. That is when negotiations stalled.

Lol. Have literally had this exact conversation with my husband. We both need a wife.

Same here. I would love a stay at home wife.

Anonymous wrote:I have not read any of these articles. But I have told my husband (seriously only half joking) that I'm down for it if he wants another wife. I want veto power, since I'm the first wife, but if he can find a woman who will help take care of our kids (and I love babies, so go ahead and have more) and clean the house and/or work so I can do these things, let's do it. He said, then wouldn't you want another husband? Hell no. One is more than enough work, thankyouverymuch. That is when negotiations stalled.

Lol. Have literally had this exact conversation with my husband. We both need a wife.

I have not read any of these articles. But I have told my husband (seriously only half joking) that I'm down for it if he wants another wife. I want veto power, since I'm the first wife, but if he can find a woman who will help take care of our kids (and I love babies, so go ahead and have more) and clean the house and/or work so I can do these things, let's do it. He said, then wouldn't you want another husband? Hell no. One is more than enough work, thankyouverymuch. That is when negotiations stalled.

Anonymous wrote:I agree with much of the concepts raised by the article.

But find it surprising coming from David Brooks, who left his wife and children for his younger research assistant. How did that impact his nuclear family?

You missed the point! The article is about how the nuclear family is an aberration, and now " a new and more communal ethos is emerging, one that is consistent with 21st-century reality and 21st-century values." He's just part of the trend, man.

Anonymous wrote:I'm not sure his statistics make sense and I don't think his conclusions drawn from them make sense.

The Scandinavian countries are the "happiest", also do not have large extended families living together, and are wealthy. Also, most Americans who moved here over the past centuries were loners, single, or maybe a married couple. They obviously didn't bring a large family with them.

In Scandinavian countries, society has taken place of the extended family. Young families are supported. Childcare and family leave is subsidized by the government, and work-life balance is valued and prioritized.

What's valued and prioritized here is the almighty dollar and working yourself to death. People are actually proud of working crazy hours. Many employers don't want to hire mothers or mothers to be. Men are considered emasculated and shamed if they want to take parental leave to bond with and care for children. Women are expected to work as if they don't have kids and parent as if they don't work. If you say you're having a hard time, you're told that you shouldn't have had kids in the first place if you can't afford (or don't want) to quit your job to care for them. If you do quit, that you're an affront to feminism and a burden on your husband. Of course the nuclear family struggles, given these conditions.

absurd and sexist article. the “extended family takes the place of paid care” only works if you think all the unpaid female labor has no value.

I'm not sure his statistics make sense and I don't think his conclusions drawn from them make sense.

The Scandinavian countries are the "happiest", also do not have large extended families living together, and are wealthy. Also, most Americans who moved here over the past centuries were loners, single, or maybe a married couple. They obviously didn't bring a large family with them.

Anonymous wrote:I agree with much of the concepts raised by the article.

But find it surprising coming from David Brooks, who left his wife and children for his younger research assistant. How did that impact his nuclear family?

Are you suggesting that someone can't know alcohol is bad and still be an alcoholic?

I agree with much of the concepts raised by the article.

But find it surprising coming from David Brooks, who left his wife and children for his younger research assistant. How did that impact his nuclear family?

I think this article, which is somewhat similar, is a bit more positive.

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2019/11/07/777276474/western-individualism-may-have-roots-in-the-medieval-churchs-obsession-with-ince

The study: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/11/how-early-christian-church-gave-birth-today-s-weird-europeans

Here is another link to a thought provoking piece in the Atlantic.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/03/the-nuclear-family-was-a-mistake/605536/


The author argues that living as nuclear family without the extended family support previous generations relied upon has made us more mobile and afforded more individual freedom, but it has also left us feeling disconnected and alone. Initially, I wanted to disagree, but the message resonates with me the more I let it sink in. This forum is filled with discussions touching on isolation, advantage gained by outsourcing family and household responsibilities, and the isolating effect of a family-focused lifestyle that does not allow sufficient time or space to form meaningful connections outside of the family.

What do you think?