Reading: The Nuclear Family Was a Mistake and The Nuclear Family is Still Indispensable
Instructions: Once you do the reading ahead of its due date, please enter your first 150-word summary responses as a comment to this post. Feel free to write more if you wish. Your summary response can address any of the questions below or more:
- What did you learn?
- Can you share a personal experience that supports or challenges the author’s key ideas.
- Do you have other pieces of information that connect in some way to the author’s key ideas?
- Make a claim responding to a key idea from the reading. The claim must explain: a. How your experiences complicate one of author’s key ideas, leading you to a different conclusion than she has drawn.
OR
b. How a key idea from author’s essay helps you understand your own experience in a new way. - How is what you learned related to our class, your other classes, your future job, other areas of life, and/or our major assignments?
Be sure to read closely, highlighting key passages and taking notes about your thoughts and reactions. Use the Reading and Annotating Guide to prepare a thorough summary/response.
In “The Nuclear Family Was a Mistake” by David Brooks, Brooks makes the claim that a nuclear family consisting of parents and their kids is a bad idea because a “detached nuclear family… is an intense set of relationships among, say, four people. If one relationship breaks, there are no shock absorbers” (Brooks). The author claims that a nuclear family structure tends to be unstable, as there often are not enough support and mediators to settle complications. Brooks uses a comparison between nuclear families and extended families and makes the point that extended families has more interconnections and a stronger support system than nuclear families. Brooks looks back at history and supports his claim, saying that after 1965, “the constellation of forces that had briefly shored up the nuclear family began to fall away, and the sheltered family of the 1950s was supplanted by the stressed family of every decade since” (Brooks). In contrast, “The Nuclear Family Is Still Indispensable” by Brad Wilcox and Hal Boyd counters Brook’s claims and says that a nuclear family is still needed and an extended family should not be a substitute. Wilcox and Boyd mentions a federal report which found that “children living in a household with an unrelated adult were nine times more likely to be physically, sexually, or emotionally abused than children raised in an intact nuclear family” (Wilcox and Boyd). Wilcox and Boyd uses this research to drive home the claim that an extended family should not be a substitute for a nuclear family, and how nuclear families are still very much needed in society. After reading both of these articles, I personally agree with Wilcox and Boyd, as I believe growing up in an intact nuclear family structure is still the healthiest environment for children to grow up in, and that extended families are not necessarily better than nuclear families. When living with extended families, there is less privacy and more risk of neglect compared to intact nuclear families.
In the Article “ The Nuclear Family is Still Indispensable” Brad Wilcox and Hal Boyd talk about the Nuclear family. The nuclear family is a family that only consists of two parents and their children. Wilcox and Boyd write their article in contradiction to “The Nuclear Family was a Mistake” by David Brooks. Brooks argued that the nuclear family has been slowly declining for decades while Wilcox and Boyd claim that the nuclear family has been recovering instead. They support this argument by stating that “divorce rates have fallen by more than 30 percent since its peak in 1980.” Wilcox and Boyd say that this is good news, especially for children since it means that more children are being raised in stable, married families. They end by saying that communities are stronger and safer when they include committed married couples and children being raised by their married parents is on the rise.
In “The Nuclear Family Was A Mistake” by David Brooks, Brooks makes the claim that this idea of a nuclear family consisting of parents and their kids is a bad idea. He says this because “detached nuclear [families] [are] an intense set of relationships among, say, four people,” (Brooks). Brooks is saying that a nuclear family structure leans more to being unstable. “If one relationship ends, there are no shock absorbers,” (Brooks). The reason for a nuclear family lending towards being unstable is that there is often not enough support and meditators to settle complications. When there is no one to settle these complications, it starts to cause problems between those in the family. One starts to resent another and without talking it out, the problem causes these people to grow distance between each other. Brooks also does a comparison between nuclear families and extended families and says that extended families have a stronger support system than nuclear families. Living with extended family sounds like a great idea because more people are there for you but it’s less privacy. You don’t really get that privacy with your intimate family.
In the article “The Nuclear Family Is Still Indispensable” by Brad Wilcox and Hal Boyd, they compared and discussed nuclear families and forged families from various aspects. The nuclear family, traditionally referred to as a mother and father raising their children, was suggested by research to provide better stability and safety for children compared to forged families, where children are raised by single parents or other adults in the community. While forged families are increasingly common, research has shown that children raised by single parents have higher rates of dropping out of high school or having a teen birth, as well as internalizing problems such as feeling loneliness and sadness. Harvard research also shows that minorities are more likely to achieve upward economic mobility if there are more married families in a neighborhood, implying the importance of having more nuclear families in our community and society. I totally agree with Wilcox and Boyd’s viewpoint, as I am fortunate to grow up in a nuclear family where I always feel safe and supported by my parents. I have also seen others who grow up in a forged family facing mental issues that seriously impact their education and daily lives. In contrast, in the article “The Nuclear Family Was a Mistake” by David Brooks, Brooks claims that nuclear families are unstable due to the increasing divorce rates and evolving societal expectations, as well as a lack of support. Although I agree that societal expectations are constantly changing, I believe that the nuclear family can’t be replaced as it provides better stability and safety for children, and it is questionable for lack of support in nuclear families.
I agree with David Brooks that nuclear families can be a bad idea. In a nuclear family, the relationships are often very intense, which can lead to feelings of being controlled or limited. With just two parents, there may not be enough support for everyone, and this can create a lot of pressure. Children in these nuclear families might feel like they don’t have the freedom to express themselves or make their own choices. Extended families, on the other hand, can provide a better support system, allowing for more independence and the chance to learn from a variety of perspectives and let the person choose what they want to be. Ultimately, having more people involved can help everyone feel more in control and connected
In the article written by David Brooks, he claims that nuclear family which is a family consisting the father, mother, and the children are less ideal because there’s a lack of support for the children. An example was if a parent was to passed away another family member like the aunt/uncle would be able to step in to take on the role. Nuclear family was ideal during the 1950’s and 60’s, when woman role was to take care of the children and the father would earn an income. He also claimed that a nuclear family has increase individual freedom but in exchange for loss of family unity. However Wilcox and Boyd argues otherwise that nuclear family compared to traditional extended family are less likely to experience poverty, behavioral problem, and to struggle academically. Additionally in a extended family without their parents around them at all time are more likely to suffer from abuse by their family members. After reading both claim, I believe that a nuclear family is more suited for modern society because nowadays we focus more on individualism to pursue or goals. Making time to attend a big family gather might be hard to even execute as a lot of people are busy or don’t have the time to make it to these gathering.
After reading both articles, I can conclude that the author of “The nuclear family was a mistake”, David Brooks, claims that nuclear families have flaws and could turn into an unstable image for the children in the household. For example, if the parents go through a divorce and are always being abusive mentally and physically with one another, it could affect the child’s performance in behavior when they get older. On the other hand, authors of “the nuclear family is still indispensable” Brad and Hal, advocate for nuclear families claiming that they are a support system and are necessary for stability in the family. Personally, I agree with Brad and Hal as I am fortunate enough to have both my parents in a relationship who are still together and that they both make efforts to support and care for me in their own ways. Occasional arguments do accrue between them, but disagreements are normal in a marriage.
In the article “The Nuclear Family Was a Mistake” the author talks about how traditional nuclear family; which consists of two parents and their children, has led to has led to increased isolation and people feeling disconnected. He says this way of living can weaken community bonds. He thinks instead he thinks we should have broader family structures and stronger community bonds to help people feel supported. The article “The Nuclear Family is Still Indispensable” talks about how nuclear family is still very important. He points out that this way of living can provide a stable and loving home for children. Some people say that this family structure helps instill life skills and values to kids, making society stronger. I think we should have a broader view of family instead of choosing one side. The traditional nuclear family can consist of a stable home, often helping kids do excel in school and feel emotionally secure. But it can be also be isolating, especially nowadays when people tend to leave their extended families and could sometimes lack strong support systems, which single parent and communal living can offer. I think it differs for everyone. It’s works for some people, but not others. I think we should support both nuclear structures, and other family structures. To me there is no right or wrong, regarding this issue.
In the text “The Nuclear Family Was A Mistake” by David Brooks sees a problem with a family only being the parents and the kids. No extended family involved. If a conflict were to be caused between the parents and children, then there would be no one else to be the voice of reason. . This creates a supporting foundation in the family. Brooks sees this as a beneficial reason to have extended family be present in one’s life. In my own experience having extended family support has helped a great deal. When a problem appears and you need a different perspective on the matter, you have people you can rely on. Having other people that are your family be able to help you is a great deal of help. Extended families can also help as mediators, Which is something Brooks talked about. If a disagreement does occur between family members, you have others to help you meditate that disagreement. Instead of putting off that disagreement and being on bad terms.
The idea of a nuclear family could be connected to the idea of the American Dream. The American Dream has many meanings to many individuals, some involving economic opportunities but the most common was the nuclear family with a large house, white picket fence, and a pet dog. In David Brooks’ article, he argues that with the rise and emphasis on a nuclear family, there’s less appreciation and support for extended families. I can see how with the focus on just being your family, you are isolating yourself from others and thus, making yourself less and less available for people who may want to make plans with you or spend time with you, such as your extended family. From my personal experience, the company of my dad’s three sisters and their families, and my mom’s three sisters and brother and their families bring joy to our lives. Being in the presence of just my parents and my siblings can get tiresome, especially if there were some conflict, where could I turn to? In Brad Wilcox and Hal Boyd’s article, they share a different viewpoint on the nuclear family, in that it has been greatly exaggerated and “remains the stablest environment in which to raise children.” They argue the benefits of the traditional nuclear family, that being the presence of two married parents because of how strong of a community is built if that were the case. As opposed to a single parent raising a family, there’s a greater risk of disputes due to one parental figure being in the child’s life and less economic mobility due to a decrease in income and opportunities. While this is also true, I agree more with David Brook because of my own personal experience with having a large family. There’s greater company and greater guidance that extended families provide that nuclear families do not. In relying so much on your one family, this dependency could create a rift if problems arise, leading to issues like estrangement.
Based on “The Nuclear Family Was a Mistake” by David Brooks, I’ve learned family arrangements have changed over time, with nuclear families becoming more popular in modern times and extended families being more typical in the past. Extended families were known for their socializing and they often centered around a family company. They became even more common during the Victorian era(“hearth and home”), as the home was idealized as a sacred place and the family as a moral haven. However, Industrialization and cultural changes during the mid late 18th and early 19th century significantly influenced the shift from extended families to nuclear families. Nuclear families has given people more freedom and space to pursue their own goals and ambitions. But some families and individuals have been able to take advantage of this freedom to find more opportunities, but the structure of the nuclear family itself isn’t what directly creates those opportunities. I think nuclear families has contributed to an increased of instability and challenges for the working-class and poor during the Industrial Revolution.
In the article “The Nuclear Family was a Mistake,” by David Brooks, the author explains the reasons on why a family of two parents and their kids is not ideal. He says that it is unstable based on divorce rates and constant changes in society; this ultimately leads to larger complications in the family. In the article “The Nuclear Family is Still Indispensable,” the authors Brad Wilcox and Hal Boyd go into depth on the opposite and why nuclear families are important. They believe that this household would be the most stable environment for children. Additionally, they do not believe that extended family can take the place of your nuclear family. Based on my personal experience, I believe being raised in a nuclear family is the most beneficial and healthiest, and I don’t keep in contact with a majority of my extended family. I agree with the Wilcox and Boyd because there is a greater chance of neglection there.
David Brooks’ article “The Nuclear Family was a Mistake,” explores the decline of traditional family structure in the U.S. Brooks references from the film ‘Avalon’ to illustrate the transformation of family dynamics over time, drawing parallels between the changes in his own life and broader societal shifts. The author sets off his writing by using the reference to paint a scene of a large family gathering on a Thanksgiving, spanning to siblings, cousins, aunts, uncles, great aunts, and all the relatives joining in to celebrate a holiday. However, as the movie continued, it portrayed the family’s gradual fragmentation as younger generations move away from the close-knit, interdependent extended family structure. The decentralization in ‘Avalon’ mirrors Brook’s broader argument about how U.S. society transitioned from extended family models to the “isolated nuclear family.” In modern society, a common theme that disconnects families is the pivot from family social engagement to technological distractions such as the television and their smart phones, which erodes intimate face-to-face bonding moments. Analyzing David Brooks’ article has broadened my understanding of family structures and how societal expectations have shaped them. Beyond this, I gained insights to how the nuclear family structure of just two parents and their children was short-lived and unstable. It was argued by Brooks that the nuclear family structure was once viewed as the ideal outcome, where children leave their parents’ nest to chase the American dream during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, but has led to isolation, particularly for working-class and poor families. In “The Nuclear Family Is Still Indispensable,” the author contrasts David Brooks’ perspective by asserting that, despite challenges faced by nuclear families, they remain the most stable environment for raising children. While Brooks suggests that the traditional family model has become outdated and advocates for alternative family structures, Brad Wilcox and Hal Boyd emphasize that the decline of the nuclear family could lead to social instability, highlighting that the extended family structure cannot fully promote upward social mobility. From my personal experience, my family is defined by a nuclear family structure, where my household is my mom, dad, and I. Both my mother and father left China to immigrate to the U.S. seeking opportunities, resonating with the second article of chasing the American dream because they came to New York to find upward social mobility. Despite the challenges of our nuclear family structure, my parents and I strive to maintain a strong bond by prioritizing quality time together, reflecting the importance of connection amid modern distraction. This experience has made me appreciate the value of both close-knit relationships, as well as the extended family dynamics because, while we are living individual lives (not living with my uncles, aunts, cousins, or relatives) all of us do gather around in important moments, and celebrate events, such as Chinese New Year.
The article, “The Nuclear Family Was A Mistake” by David Brooks explores and challenges the idea of a traditional nuclear family arguing the importance of community and connections that aren’t found within a nuclear family. For various reasons, this family dynamic became popular in the States during the ’60s and ’70s after the Second World War. What consisted of a nuclear family was parents and children, with no family extensions. Brooks takes a stab at this dynamic, implying how this leads to isolation, stress, and independence versus growing a community. Historically the dynamics of family have changed numerous times however the observations of nuclear families growing and people growing distant aren’t any furthering for society. Brooks continues to encourage the view of family and community within the article believing that the more interconnected some people can be; the more better for society overall. I agree with David Brook’s key ideas in his article. Having a family besides my immediate family to communicate and fall back on has been very valuable for me. It helps navigate perspectives, safe spaces, and a community with people of your own.
The key idea of the articles were comparing a nuclear family to a forged family. Where kids grew up under the care of a mother and father is called a “nuclear family”. And on the other hand a family under the care of a single parent is called a “forged family”. I relate to a “nuclear family” where me and my sister are raised under the care of our parents. This raises to a societal opinion based on the rate of how successful a child will become. Where the chances of a child in a nuclear family tends to do better in their academic career versus a child with divorce may not do better in school. Many would say that because a child’s growth that misses a parental love tends to feel less important leading them to feel astray and also going towards a bad path because the parent isnt always there due to work. Where if both parents are involved it keeps a balance of both a steady income and care for the kids. Therefore, allowing the child to feel protected and comfortable in the surroundings of their parents. Hence, it’s “right” to have a nuclear family because it’s perfect for how a family should look like.
In “The Nuclear Family Was A Mistake” by David Brooks, he discusses how America has shifted between having extended and inter-connected families to “nuclear families”. Nuclear families are households with just the parents and kids, relatively small. Brooks talks about how the change into nuclear families has many negative impacts on the children. One of the impacts being there is no one to absorb the shock in the case of anything happening. There is no one to turn to and you only so little support and people to turn to. I can relate and his article supports my own experience of being raised in a nuclear family. Having no other family to support you even in the little things like he mentioned picking up the kid from school if both parents are busy. Also the inability to “absorb the shock” is very close to home because I lost my father this month and those type of events really show who is there for you and how hard it is knowing one of the main people in your life is gone and there isn’t that extended family to lean on or fill the space. This also relates back to the other article we read “The Shift in American Families is Fueling Estrangement” because Brooks mentions a similar idea on how the reason why the past two generations have changed so much and shifted to nuclear families is because of the shift in American culture. The shift on people pursing personal growth and self fulfillment over the connections and relationships between their families. There’s a common theme.
In the article “The Nuclear Family is still indispensable” by Brad Willcox, it is stated that the traditional, or as he called it “Nuclear” family, consists of two parents who raise their children, statistically is much more beneficial for the child’s mental health and overall success. He states that the nuclear family concept is irreplaceable and is usually the best option for the kids.Unfortunately I have seen many examples of “nuclear families” which contradict Willcox’s idea. In a perfect world nuclear families would definitely be much more predominant over forged ones, but oftentimes, especially nowadays, the dynamic in a relationship between the parents is off which usually leads to even bigger problems when it comes to a child’s mental health. Another contradiction to Willcox’s idea of a family is the fact that it’s really common for married couples to keep the marriage even if it gets to a point where it’s unwanted or harmful, just in order to raise their kids in a family environment, however it is more common for that logic to be harmful rather than helpful. The presence of both parents does not guarantee the best environment for the kids
In “The Nuclear Family Was A Mistake.” by David Brooks it’s discussed how the idea of a nuclear family was a mistake. The article claims that the structure that a nuclear family is built of is unstable. Two parents, typically two kids all under one household. Naturally we see this as the norm, almost every family when pictured is two parents their kids all living with each other. So what’s wrong with this dynamic? With a defense of how problems couldn’t be resolved, power dynamics shift. But it also could be compared to how the idea of the nuclear family is becoming increasingly more out of fashion. The idea of on household with to kids seems to be in the past. In my personal experience I agree as when I think about a family I would want in the future I don’t see myself with two kids, growing up knowing the cost of one kid and how things in the economy are going now having more then one kid seems almost near impossible if I with to be involved in the kids life. I think the nuclear family was this ideal for purpose, hum as freak out when we don’t know what we’re suppose to do. So where you promote this idea of this dynamic, this is the end goal it keeps people working and people to be involved society. If everyone is following the main goal so would you. The key idea of the essay makes me understand why I have curtain goals. As I still want my owe family seeing both articles explain and breakdown how these dynamics are seen as outdated and possibly destructive I take a different approach of why I want what I want. I think about it more how and wonder what exactly is my goal. What I learned will be related to other areas of my like as I compare and wonder what I would want to complete in my like family wise.
In the article “The Nuclear Family Was A Mistake” by David Brooks, he emphasizes the point that nuclear families are unstable. A typical nuclear family includes only the parents and children which he finds a bad idea because there is nobody else to absorb the shock of what happens, given something occurs. His point is that nuclear families are not good for a child’s mental health and success due to “isolation” and lack of other support. On the contrary, Wilcox and Boyd highlights their point of how a nuclear family is necessary. They also talk about how a nuclear family is more likely to be financially and economically stable compared to extended families. A nuclear family is necessary because it provides immediate support if needed which extended family cannot replace. I grew up in an extended family which gradually changed to a nuclear family and I find that I like it this way a lot more. Having only my parents and siblings allow for me to feel not only more comfortable but also close knit. Lessening the amount of people I have to rely on allows me to build my relationships with the ones I have already. I definitely like the idea of a nuclear family more because I feel that I’m given the most support and success this way.
“The Nuclear Family Was a Mistake” by David Brooks claims that a nuclear family, a family with parents and children, should be seen as a mistake. A set of parents and children in only one home is seen as the American Dream family. It is seen as this because the couple gets to be with one another and their kids and then their kids have one another. Although to some people it sounds perfect, Brooks describes this as a detached nuclear family because there is no other source of outlet other than the main family. The nuclear family excludes everyone other than the parents and children. This is extremely unstable for the survival of the family, inevitably, the family implodes into a lonely separated household. Brooks wants the nuclear family to include an extended family. I agree with the extended family portion because if I didn’t have other people in my family to talk about my family issues then I don’t know if I would be the same person I am now. While this may be Brooks’ way of thinking, “The Nuclear Family Is Still Indispensable” by Brad Wilcox and Hal Boyd argues that nuclear families are needed in society. Wilcox and Hal found being taken care of by an extended family member can do more damage to the child than a nuclear family can do. Although I think the American dream is subjective, Wilcox and Halfind that it is easier to obtain within a nuclear family. After reading both articles, I understand both points of view. I think in any case, too much of anything is bad for someone. In my experience I have been taken care of by my parents and then also by extended family, so I think it depends on the family you are put into.
According to Brook, because of hyper individualism people “experimented with new ways of living that embraced individualistic values.” As a result, less and less people were getting married and throughout the years, less and less children were being born. By 2018, 51 percent of individuals were living without a romantic partner. There were more homes with pets than there were homes with children in it. Brooks explains how because there was a focus on nuclear families, extended families were not present and were slowly fading. In my experience and opinion, my life would be very different without extended family. I grew up pretty much always hanging out with extended family. It was what made my childhood memorable. I was also raised by my grandparents so I couldn’t imagine what life would be like without them. In contrast, Brad Wilcox and Hal Boyd assert that the nuclear family is “the stablest environment in which to raise children.” I would have to disagree though as I believe it is important to have support from other people, not just your parents. Relying on only your parents creates narrow minded views and leads to codependency with your parents which will limit your growth as your own person.
From my personal experience, I grew up in a household where my family, including my aunt and ex-uncle, lived together. During that time, whenever conflicts arose among us, other family members often stepped in as mediators. While this didn’t always resolve the underlying issues, it helped prevent conflicts from escalating further.
One important factor that I believe is missing from discussions about family dynamics, such as those in the articles, is the relationship between the nuclear family and its extended family. Generally speaking, the ability to navigate and resolve conflicts often depends on how close the extended family is to the immediate family. In my case, we were fortunate to have a strong bond with our extended relatives, which allowed for additional support and perspective during conflicts. This closeness not only facilitated mediation but also reinforced a sense of community and shared responsibility, highlighting the importance of extended family connections in fostering harmony within the household.
“The Nuclear Family Was a Mistake” by David Brooks was mainly opposing the fact that Nuclear Families are the best types of family. He thinks that having an extended family is the way to go because it allows you to connect with a bunch of family. With more family members you can always rely on someone if some situation were to happen where you need support. In a nuclear family you can’t gain the support of others, you have to rely on the same people and sometimes you end up keeping things to yourself and not stepping out leaving you wanting to self-isolate.
“The Nuclear Family Is Still Indispensable” the authors Brad Wilcox and Hal Boyd Disagree with the first author saying that Nuclear Families are the better option because there is more structure, financially, emotionally, mentally, etc. You’re able to connect with your close family being parents and siblings instead of having to form many little connections. It’s better to have fewer big connections with family than a bunch of small ones. Bonding with your immediate family will be beneficial because you spend most of your time with them so that you can gain any type of support you might need. I think both types of families are functional, personally because of distance sometimes my family goes from Nuclear to extended to nuclear again, and so-on. I think having extended family helps bring in viewpoints you might need for support, but having immediate family can help you gain bonds with people that might be in your life for the long run.
“The Nuclear Family Was a Mistake” brings attention to the slow crumbling of the nuclear family and its gradual replacement with “forged families.” These forged families are alternative families composed of “single parents, single adults, and others coming together to support one another and children” (Atlantic, 2020). Brooks argues that these alternative families provide an amount of support, care, and a sense of belonging that nuclear families might often not. When attempting to explain the decrease in nuclear families, changing social and economic realities have been offered as an explanation. The article, “The Nuclear Family Is Still Indispensable” provides an argument to Brook’s claims. Rather than a decrease in nuclear families, the article states that there has been an increase in nuclear families these recent years. Furthermore, they state that forged families can’t actually replace the love and support that nuclear families provide. According to their research, children raised in nuclear families are better off in life than children raised in forged families. As someone part of a nuclear family, I would say that the success of children can’t be entirely attributed to the type of parents they have. I have had friends that come from single parent households and their success (at least in terms of happiness and academic achievements) were often greater than mine. In my psychology course, it was concluded that parents don’t actually have as much influence over their children as we like to think. Most children end up following their own route or following what those close to their age do. What parents can control is the environment they choose to raise their children in. This relates to the second article, where areas constructed of nuclear families are often considered safer living areas. If parents choose to raise their children in these areas, then perhaps the good outcomes will apply.
Brad Wilcox’s and Hal Boyd’s “The Nuclear Family is Still Indispensable”, disagrees with the main argument of David Brooks’, “The Nuclear Family Was a Mistake.” stating that the nuclear family is recovering and no longer disintegrating and that it is the most safest and stable environment for children. A nuclear family is a family group consisting of a father and mother figure with their children. Brooks argues that the nuclear family is slowly diminishing and that there are other forms of ways that families can live and support each other such as through extended families and “forged families,” where single parents and adults come together to support the needs of their children creating a more stable environment for children to grow in compared to a traditional nuclear family. Brook argues that an increase in divorce rate due to a tense relationship and societal influences for a nuclear family impacts the way a child develops in their early years; however Wilcox and Boyd write that a traditional family is the support that a child needs emotionally and financially. Nuclear families provide a stronger bond between parental figures and children helping children grow up emotionally needed while “forged families” focus more on the bonds extended family members or members of the community and children. Although support from the community and other extended families provide comfort and needs for what a child needs, it still does not provide a sense of emotional bond between a direct parental figure and child, which was suggested by Boyd and Wilcox.
The term “nuclear family,” which refers to a conventional family made up of a mother, a father, and their biological children, is discussed in the articles. In the first piece, “The Nuclear Family was a Mistake,” the social mores and detrimental effects of nuclear families—such as financial and psychological difficulties for both parents and children—are covered. The qualities of extended, single-parent, and multigenerational families are acknowledged in the second article, “The Nuclear Family is Still Indispensable,” along with other alternative family arrangements. They contend that nuclear families can be advantageous for families because they offer steady support, give kids a sense of stability, and are better for neighborhoods because of their link to local security and supervision.The second article, “The Nuclear Family is Still Indispensable,” explores the effects of every family form while emphasizing its unique qualities. All things considered, the articles offer a thorough examination of the nuclear family and all of its aspects, emphasizing how important it is to take consideration of other family arrangements in society.
Both articles have. very strong, opposing arguments that are convincing. I feel that they both have aspects that have very good points, but the article “The Nuclear Family Was A Mistake” was slightly more convincing. Although having a nuclear family either in a poor child’s life is more likely to increase marriage rates in poor communities, that does not better the child’s life significantly. At most it has a connection to making communities slightly safer. Through extended family or any other type of non-nuclear families, a child will gain more experience with diversity and while also helping a child understand and accept other types of families. In nuclear families, the parents are often more stressed due to a lack of support from other family members which may impact the child negatively. Nuclear families have always been idealized but many people don’t understand that there are benefits to having alternative families.
According to the text “nuclear family was a mistake” , David explores the historical evolution of family structures in the United States,he talks about the transition from corporate families who are centered around family businesses to nuclear families characterized by a married couple and their children. In 1800, 90% of American families were corporate, which are families that work together to benefit the parent corporation. Extended families offered resilience through a supportive network and they also were able to provide unconditional love, teaching children moral values. However, as industrialization progressed, young people increasingly moved to cities, forming nuclear families that prioritized autonomy. By the 1920s, the nuclear family became dominant, and by 1960, the ideal of a two-parent household emerged. This family structure thrived temporarily, societal norms often relegated women to the home, creating limitations on their roles. Today, traditional nuclear families represent only a minority of households, illustrating that the post-World War II family ideal was a historical anomaly rather than the norm throughout human history.
As I read the nuclear family was a mistake and the nuclear family is still indispensable, I learnt of the term “nuclear family”. It refers to a family made up of a mother and father and their own biological children. It shows that nuclear families can extend support, and a sense of steadiness in children. Both articles are very opposite messages. I agree with the sense that it creates a stable environment for children. I believe have a nuclear family was the norm back then but is now reaching a point where it is not. Personally, I come from a nuclear family, but I don’t believe that we differ from any other. Having both a father and mother is not making me any different mental health wise from any of my friends who don’t have this kind of family. In relation to my future job, I believe that in a work place nuclear families will not be the norm anymore. There will be everything and that will be normal.
The piece “The Nuclear Family Was a Mistake” by David Brooks mostly argues that Nuclear Families are the best types of family and believes that having an extended family is ideal since it allows you to interact with many family members. When you are in the family, there are many people so if something happens you’ll always find someone to turn to. At least in this type of family, you can’t depend on someone else you have to struggle with those you are related to, and it results to a point where one does not go out as he/she wants to isolate himself/herself. Brad Wilcox, one of the authors of “The Nuclear Family Is Still Indispensable,” disagrees with the first author, Still nuclear families are preferable, for the simple and inflexible fact that there is more guidance, be it in terms of financial, and emotional, mental points of view. You can also make a few intimate relationships with the immediate family instead of having to make many smaller ones. Big connections with family are always better than having a lot of tiny ones. Being close to your family will be helpful because you are often around them to get any sort of support you may require.
i forgot to submit this
These two articles we had to read is speaks on the Nuclear Family, which is a Traditional family. The two athours argue whether if this is beneficial for the family and children. In the article “The Nuclear Family Was a Mistake,” David argues that the nuclear family is unstable and isn’t enough for the family. He believes that there isn’t enough support and compares to extended family where there are multiple people to rely on when there are issue making it more comfortable. In the other article “The Nuclear Family Is Still Indispensable” the authors Wilcox and Boyd believe the opposite. They argue that the Nuclear Family is best environment for raising children. They bring studies in there article in which it gives proof that the Nuclear Family is more stability, children are less likely to face abuse, and builds a strong foundation for children. In my life and family, we believe that our cousins are our siblings and I can say that some of my aunts are my second mother. Have a close extended family really helped me and helped others in out family when there are issue with our immediate family. I would have to agree with David’s point at the end of the day and would really back it.
In his article, David Brooks argues that the nuclear family, consisting of just the father, mother, and children, is less ideal because it lacks support systems for children. He explains that in earlier times, extended family members like aunts and uncles could step in if a parent passed away. The nuclear family was ideal in the 1950s and 60s when women took care of children and men worked. While it offered more individual freedom, it also led to a loss of family unity. However, Wilcox and Boyd argue that nuclear families, compared to extended families, are less likely to experience poverty, behavioral problems, or academic struggles. They also point out that extended families may expose children to more risk, including abuse. After reading both views, I believe nuclear families better suit modern society, where individualism and pursuing personal goals are prioritized, and large family gatherings are often difficult to manage.
In the article “The Nuclear Family was a mistake” the author David Brooks explains why extended families are better. He explains how in a nuclear family the children may not be getting enough support since its only a two parent household. The child may feel left out and it can cause emotional distress to them. However in an extended family there is always someone that is available when you need support. An extended family can range from having many adults in one household. I agree with the authors overall take on this because I have experience. When I was growing up I had mostly an extended household and I always felt like there was someone there for me when I needed help with something.
David Brooks (2020) released his article, “Nuclear Family was a Mistake”; in it, he believes that while larger families have less mobility, less security, and less privacy – in the time of crisis, these large families can “cushion” an issue due to the large amount of individuals ready to help. On the other hand, Brooks (2020) claims that in the event of a divorce for a nuclear family, this would mark the end of said family. Brooks (2020) argues that a majority of individuals in contemporary times would imagine a “family” as the nuclear family, consisting of parents and 2.5 children. He argues that this is a very recent phenomena and is not how a majority of humans lived throughout history. The nuclear family, in order to function again at its peak, would require unreplicable conditions to repeat (David Brooks, 2020, p. 19). In response to this, Wilcox and Boyd (2020) released their own article “The Nuclear Family is Still Indispensable” which answers to multiple stories and media claiming the death of the nuclear family – Brooks being included in that sum. Wilcox and Boyd (2020, p. 3) argues that divorce rates have gone down which is a significant improvement for kids. Wilcox and Boyd (2020) cite studies to counter Brooks’ argument which claims that children who grow up with a mother and grandmother show no difference to children who only grew up with a mother. Furthermore, they cite another study which claims that children who grow up with kith and kin tend to have more issues compared to children who grow up with parental figures.
A nuclear family is basically by its composition of two married parents (wife and husband) and their biological children. They raise them together and according to the articles and some of my personal research, the term “nuclear family” is referring here to the fact that they are all living together in the same household “gravitating” around each other. This type of family is criticized by David Brooks’s article “The Nuclear Family was a mistake” which states that this family structure “has been a catastrophe for many.” According to him, that type of family tends to be unstable and more likely to face conflicts because of strong relationships, bounding one with another within the family. He also stated that compared to extended families, nuclear families can break apart easily if disagreements occur within it : “If one relationship ends, there are no shock absorbers,”.
However I disagree with him when he emphasizes that extended families are “better” or more likely to build a healthy environment. Nuclear families will indeed encourage a strong relationship between its members, however it doesn’t sound like a disadvantage to me. Within a nuclear family you’ll get the chance to be close to each member of your family, while in an extended family , bonds are likely to be weaker between its members because of the density of people within it.
The two articles discuss how the concept of family has evolved over time and examine which type is ideal for society. In Brooks’ article he explains that structures have shfited from extended family to nuclear family.
He state, “We’ve made life better for adults but worse for children. We’ve moved from big, interconnected, and extended families , which helped protect the most vulnerable people in society from the shocks of life, to smaller, detached nuclear families (a married couple and their children), which gives the most privileged people in society room to maximize their talents and expand their options.”(Brook, 2020, p.4)
This suggests that nuclear family sacrifice children’s quality of life for the sake of increased liberty and opportunities for adults.
But I strongly disagree with this idea. The benefits of the extended family often came from women’s sacrifice. Throughout the whole article, the author primarily focuses on negative consequences faced by single men, seniors and children who are not part of extended family. While he acknowledges that mothers who raise their children without extended family nearby often find it challenging and isolating, this implies that childcare is solely mother’s responsibility. I believe that raising children should be the responsibility of both parents. Brook also introduces the new type of family structure “Forged Family”, which he sees as an opportunity to broaden family relationships that can give “a dozen pairs of arms” when adults and children fall. But I think individuals-adults and children both- should learn to overcome challenges independently, which will make them more strong.
The second article, on the other hand, argues that nuclear family is effective, highlighting that it provides the most stable and safest environment for raising children. Additionally, the article informs that the divorce rate and out-of-wedlock births are decreasing which means that children are now more likely to be raised by both of their biological parents. They also point out that “sadly, adult who are unrelated to children are much more likely to abuse or neglect them than their own parents are”. (Wilcox and Boyd, 2020, p.6) This quote shows that the potential flaws of forged family in terms of providing stability for children.
In my opinion, the nuclear family values adults’ privacy and offers lots of opportunities for personal growth. It would positively influence their children, who can learn important life skills by observing their parents. Ultimately, children will have their own nuclear families at some point, so it is indispensable for them to learn how to manage it effectively from their parents.
The article talks about how the nuclear family, where two parents raise their children, is still important, even though other types of family structures, like multigenerational households or single-parent families, are becoming more common. While these alternative family setups can offer support, the article argues that they can’t fully replace the nuclear family when it comes to raising kids. Research shows that kids in these non traditional families may face more emotional struggles and are at higher risk of abuse when they live with adults who are not their parents.
I can relate to this because I have seen how important it is to have both parents in a child’s life. My parents have always been there for me, and I can see how that stability helps me grow emotionally.
In the article “Free Money for Social Progress: Theory and Practice of Gesell’s Accelerated Money,” the author delves into Silvio Gesell’s theory of “free money,” which suggests that money should lose value over time (known as “accelerated money”) to prevent hoarding and encourage spending. Gesell believed this system would stimulate the economy by promoting a constant flow of money, as well as help to remove the power imbalances created by landowners and moneylenders. His ideas gained traction during economic crises, particularly during the Great Depression, when people were struggling with unemployment and financial instability.
Gesell’s idea was not just about changing how money works, but about creating a fairer economic system. He argued that landowners and moneylenders hold too much power in the economy, which prevents workers from getting the full value of their work. In his vision, a “natural economic order” would remove these privileges, creating a more balanced and just society. His theories gained attention during tough economic times, like the Great Depression, when people were struggling with unemployment and poverty.
While Gesell’s ideas are interesting, I think implementing accelerated money on a global scale would be difficult. However, using local currencies could help boost local economies and prevent money from being hoarded. Overall, I believe a mix of traditional and alternative economic systems could create a more fair and stable economy.
In his article, “The Nuclear Family Was a Mistake,” David Brooks critiques the traditional nuclear family, arguing that it lacks the broader community connections vital for a fulfilling life. The nuclear family parents and children without extended relatives gained popularity in the United States during the 1960s and 1970s after World War II. Brooks contends that this setup can lead to isolation, stress, and too much focus on independence, rather than fostering a supportive network. While family structures have evolved over time, he believes the shift toward nuclear families has distanced people from one another, which isn’t ideal for society. Instead, he promotes a vision of family that extends beyond the immediate household, emphasizing that stronger community ties enhance overall well-being.
I partly agree with Brooks. I think the nuclear family has its strengths it provides a close relations with your first family, stable unit that I value. However, having a family beyond my immediate relatives is just as important. This wider network offers diverse perspectives, emotional support, and a sense of belonging that complements the nuclear family beautifully.
This week’s readings discuss the topic of whether the nuclear family format should be what every parent and child strive for. Brad Wilcox and Hal Boyd’s “The Nuclear Family Is Still Indispensable” argues that an environment of married couples in a nuclear family neighbourhood could greatly benefit a child’s growth. David Brooks’s “The Nuclear Family Was a Mistake” on the other hand, argues that the nuclear family strains parents and children’s relationships, especially for single parents and/or during economic hardships.
Both articles contain information that clashes with my prior knowledge. In “The Nuclear Family Is Still Indispensable”, it is stated that “Today, the divorce rate is down, having fallen by more than 30 percent since peaking around 1980, in the wake of the divorce revolution.” This contradicts what we read and discussed during the arranged marriages reading, where Ji Hyun Lee’s “Modern Lessons From Arranged Marriages” states that the divorce rate is rising. While “The Nuclear Family Is Still Indispensable” reports that countries with nuclear families are more likely to be wealthy compared to extended families. However, correlation is not causation since wealthier families are more likely to have the resources to move out of their parents’ house.
I personally have mixed feelings regarding the two articles. Since both articles contain information that contradicts my knowledge. Additionally, each marriage and family is different, an analysis based purely on numbers can not indicate whether one type of family is better. Thus, I am unable to side with either style of family style
These articles interpret how our family structures have changed over time, and argue which type is more fitting to our modern society.
In the article “The Nuclear Family Was a Mistake,” David Brooks (2020) examines the historical rise and fall of the nuclear family. He also highlights how the extended families were the primary family structure for most of human history, which provided both economic and social support, even in the time of crisis.
Even though the nuclear family, on the other hand, is having more dominance in societies nowadays, Brooks (2020) argued that it was less stable, especially among working-class and lower-income groups, leading to the rising rates of divorce and economic hardships. As a result, Brooks suggests that “the nuclear families” must be supplemented with a new type of family structure, “forged families,” – close communities of relatives, friends, and neighbors – which could provide the support that the nuclear families often lack.
However, in the second article “The Nuclear Family Is Still Indispensable,” authors Brad Wilcox (2020) and Hal Boyd (2020) argue that despite the narratives suggesting its decline, the nuclear family is still the most stable and beneficial environment for child-rearing. They further reinforce their idea by highlighting the positive trends of the nuclear family: the decreasing rate of divorce. Eventually, Willcox (2020) and Boyd (2020) state that
“To be sure, the isolated nuclear family detached from all social support is simply not
workable for most people. Married couples raising children—as well as other family
forms—are more likely to thrive when they are embedded in strong networks of
friends, family, community, and religious congregations.” (Brad Wilcox and Hal Boyd, 2020, p.7)
While recognizing the valuable roles of extended families, they emphasize that the nuclear family with strong connections continues to be the most ideal family structure for raising children.
In my own experience, although I hate the idea of having less privacy, I support more towards the idea of extended families as they can provide invaluable relationships and connections with our relatives, particularly grandparents, which usually turns out as a regret to most children in nuclear families for not having enough experience with them.
Additionally, even though children with siblings within nuclear families may have fewer struggles, only children, on the other side, face huge troubles in socializing and getting the support that they need. Although I love the idea of children learning to overcome their struggles independently as the time goes on, they will never have beautiful, unforgettable memories of childhood when they grow up like children in extended families do.
I could generally agree with author’s claim. In my opinion, child’s environment is substantially crucial for their self-formation, emotional stability, socialization. While adults have opportunities to interact with peers at work or school and rely on partners or friends for support, children spend most of their time with their families and are entirely dependent on them. As numerous studies have proven, nuclear family is the most ideal way for the children. Even though extended and alternative family models can offer support and have certain positive effects, they cannot fully replace the stability offered by ‘normal family’ described as nuclear family.
Yet, it is obvious that some parts of extended family have advantages. Relating it to my growth background, although my family follows the nuclear model, both of my parents worked full-time, and my grandparents passed away early. Consequently, I and my sibling were cared by a nanny during the daytime and spent time with my parents in the evenings after getting off work. If they had been alive, being raised by grandparents or other relatives would have been preferable to being cared for by a nanny in terms of safety and reliability. The author also mentioned this issue stating:
“One federal report found that children living in a household with an unrelated adult were about nine times more likely to be physically, sexually, or emotionally abused than children raised in an intact nuclear family.” (Wilcox & Boyd, 2020, p.g. 6) Therefore, I want to add to the author’s statement by emphasizing that even within nuclear family, the role of the extended family such as grandparents or close kins could be still supportive and influential for the beneficial environment for children.
In the article “The Nuclear Family Was a Mistake,” David Brooks emphasizes the importance of extended family. He highlights the negatives of extended family and the positives of extended family. Brooks examines historical evidence and stories of extended families and nuclear families. He argues that even though there is little privacy, and a lack of individual choices found in extended families, it is more beneficial for the children. He claims that more freedom from the American Nuclear family is better for adults than for the children in the article. The children have no secure base and no well-defined pathway to adulthood in a nuclear family as in a socializing family. Brooks points out that in today’s family’s convenience, privacy and mobility outweigh family loyalty. In his last sentence in the article, Brooks wishes to bring back the extended family, “It’s time to find ways to bring back the big tables.”(Brooks, 2020, p.g. 33)
However, in the second article “The Nuclear Family Is Still Indispensable,” authors Brad Wilcox and Hal Boyd argue that the nuclear family is still beneficial for children despite Brooks’s claim that it is not. In the article, modern research shows that the chances of children dropping out of school or teens giving birth are the same for extended families compared to Nuclear families. “Sara McLanahan of Princeton University and Gary Sandefur of the University of Wisconsin have found that the average child raised by a ‘mother and grandmother is doing about the same as the average child raised by a single mother’ on outcomes such as dropping out of high school or having a teen birth.” (Wilcox & Boyd, 2020, p.g. 5). Hence, Wilcox & Boyd proclaim that the main reason for the children not doing well isn’t because the child was raised in a single-family household. But they were raised by unrelated adults. Wilcox and Boyd continue to add that when it comes to meeting a child’s needs, having a mom and dad is more important than being in an extended family (Wilcox & Boyd, 2020, p.g. 7).
In the article titled “THE NUCLEAR FAMILY WAS A MISTAKE”, David Brooks questions the effectiveness of the Nuclear family, formed by a married couple and children. This family model became popular by the years 1950-1965. During this period marriage rates increased while divorce rates decreased. The role of women was to stay home when married since corporations hired single women. Around 1960 the typical structure of the nuclear family was threatened by economic pressures such as lower wages. The average age for marriage dropped to 3.6 years for men and 2.2 years for women. Also, the feminist movement empowered women to choose and live as they wish. But things evolved, the divorce rate increased in 1870-1920 and the marriage age increased. As per the General Social Survey by the year 2004 33% of Americans between the ages 18 to 34 were living without a partner. The economy influenced the drastic change from big and structured families to more small families. Raising kids is expensive because of babysitting, coaching, and time needed. Brooks stated that in the 21st century, nuclear families are transforming because of social and economic dynamics.
The second article “Nuclear Family Is Still Indispensable” by Brad Wilcox and Hal Boyd states and promotes that the nuclear family is the perfect environment to raise children. Married parents provide stability and create a safe environment for children. Compared to other family structures Nuclear families have more benefits, research by Robert Sampson states that neighborhoods made of many nuclear families are safer. It also decreases the chances of kids being neglected, abused, and developing future emotional problems
I agree with David Brooks and I think he explained well the transition of the Nuclear family. I love kids and would like to have a big family but is negligent to bring kids into this world when I’m not financially stable, living in a small apartment. As a woman, I also need to consider my career goals.
The article argues that despite modern critiques, the traditional nuclear family remains a vital societal institution. This article emphasizes that a two-parent structure which provides a stable environment for a children as emotional support and economic security. According to the author, the nuclear family serves as a crucial unit for transmitting cultural values and norms that childrens which helps maintain community cohesion. This article warns that completely abandoning the nuclear family could lead to many social consequences due to the absence of one parent. As my own experience, the nuclear family is very important because children needs the both parent lessons to grow up. The Article of “The nuclear family is still indispensable” argues that although many changes can lead to the separation of both parents as shortcomings, the traditional nuclear family remains still in modern society. Other person can step up and fulfill that role that one of both parents have left, in some cases such as the grandmothers.
Over the years, there have been multiple changes in the dynamic of families. As someone who is currently living in a nuclear family, the benefits of being interconnected with your own parents and siblings are non-negotiable. As discussed in the article “The nuclear family is still indispensable.”
Children who were raised by unrelated adults were about nine times more likely to be subjected to physical, sexual, and emotional abuse. One possible reason behind this could possibly be due to the fact that unrelated adults have much less sense of affection than biological parents. A nuclear family allows for privacy that I will not be able to find in an extended family. I believe it is a nuclear family that allows the children and their biological parents to be much closer to each other and can ensure safety. Nuclear families may also have much less frustration and complexities, as there will be few members involved in the decision-making phases of the family, with the children being the first priority.
“First, the market wants us to live alone or with just a few people. at way we are mobile, unattached, and uncommitted, able to devote an enormous number of hours to our jobs. Second,When people who are raised in developed countries get money, they buy privacy.” Basically, the nuclear family actually is made by the trend of world. Lot of families they can not live together, they are busy, the usage of your extended family is probably ask your parents to do the baby sitting for you because you don’t have time.
“Cross hypothesized that living closer to extended family may actually be helping protect black children “against some of the negative effects associated with parental absence from the home.””
I personally live in an extended family. I grew up in an environment of mother absence. So the rule of mother has been taken by my aunt. But also, the extended family is probably the reason why my parents “divorce”. Expanded family doesn’t only means the support from your family, also means judgement. You expanded family not only make your parents live a happy life, but can also destroy it. So that’s a personally choice, if you want to take the privilege or advantage from your expanded family, you also need to take the disadvantage. Your aunt may teach you how to do your math homework, but they can also destroy the relationship between your parents and say I can be your “mom” in the future. Who knows?
I grew up in a nuclear family. I always had and have until this day the full support of my parents . They are still married and I can say that I have a very stable family relationship. Personally, I can’t say that I fully support one of the articles because I agree and disagree with both. I agree that is beneficial for children to have a solid family structure where only both parents live in the house, but I don’t believe that only kids that had this kind of structure are stable in life. I believe that having a solid structure is good but we can find good structures in an extended family too and other people. Children that are raised by unrelated adults can have the same problems as kids raised by their parents.
After reading both articles, I see valid arguments in each. David Brooks emphasizes how the lack of support in the nuclear family can make it unstable and isolated, especially when crises occur, while Wilcox and Boyd argue that it remains the best environment for raising children due to its stability and structure within a family. I believe the stability of a family depends not only on its structure, but on the bond and support between its members. A nuclear family can be solid if there is communication, commitment, and emotional security, but an extended family can provide invaluable support in difficult times. It’s also true that the social and economic context greatly influences what type of family works best. In a society where mobility and individualism are increasingly common, the nuclear family seems more practical, but the support of a wider family network never ceases to be important. In the end, there is no single right way to form a family; what is essential is the love, understanding, and stability that each home can offer.
David Brooks’s article about Nuclear families and how it’s a mistake vs Brad Wilcox’s article about nuclear families being important are two polar articles exploring the topic of nuclear families. David Brooks thinks that Nuclear families are a mistake since many may feel like they are isolated, since nuclear families became popular after WW2, David believes that nuclear families are harmful for kids as this may result in estrangement, which happens with many kids and their families. However, looking at the other article, the one by Brad, he argues that nuclear families are more stable than extended families since in Nuclear families, as long as both parents are mentally and financially doing well, raising their kids won’t be a big issue at all. He further argues that raising kids in an extended family is a bad idea because extended families may neglect/abuse kids, which can hurt the children’s well-being, physically and mentally. Although Brad does agree with some points David made, he countered it with the fact that statistics showed that from the 80s to the present time, the divorce rate has decreased a dramatic amount.
In “The Nuclear Family Was a Mistake”, David Brooks argues that while nuclear families are common, extended families are actually better because they provide more support. With more family members around, there’s always someone to rely on in difficult times. However, he also points out that in these larger families, people might feel stuck, unable to be independent, or may isolate themselves.
On the other hand, Brad Wilcox, in The Nuclear Family Is Still Indispensable, disagrees. He believes nuclear families are better because they offer more stability, both financially and emotionally. He argues that having a small, close-knit family allows for stronger and more meaningful relationships instead of having many weaker connections. He emphasizes that being close to your immediate family ensures you have the support you need.
Both perspectives highlight the importance of family, but they differ on which structure provides the best balance of support and independence.