<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Family Matters</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2009/07/family-matters/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2009/07/family-matters/</link>
	<description>Place. Limits. Liberty.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 17:57:44 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Empedocles</title>
		<link>http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2009/07/family-matters/#comment-8933</link>
		<dc:creator>Empedocles</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 31 Jul 2009 14:12:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/?p=4953#comment-8933</guid>
		<description>&quot;we need to find a good higher than individual choice. That points us back in the direction of teleology&quot;
Yes, we need to concentrate on the function (or end) of marriage, which is the successful raising of children.  The great mistake was in seeing love as the function of marriage.  Virtues are those features of a thing which allow it to perform its function.  Love is the primary virtue of marriage (there are others), not its function.  It one of the things that allows marriage to perform its function of successfully raising children.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;we need to find a good higher than individual choice. That points us back in the direction of teleology&#8221;<br />
Yes, we need to concentrate on the function (or end) of marriage, which is the successful raising of children.  The great mistake was in seeing love as the function of marriage.  Virtues are those features of a thing which allow it to perform its function.  Love is the primary virtue of marriage (there are others), not its function.  It one of the things that allows marriage to perform its function of successfully raising children.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dan</title>
		<link>http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2009/07/family-matters/#comment-8851</link>
		<dc:creator>Dan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Jul 2009 18:46:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/?p=4953#comment-8851</guid>
		<description>Mark,

&quot;The question, then, is this: can strong families, based on two parents but including extended family members, exist in a culture where individual choice is elevated to the highest value? I think the answer is no.&quot;

Questions. Do we live in a culture where individual choice is elevated to the highest value? Are there strong families, based on two parents but including extended family members? Do you feel that these families then exist today a ruins of a past civilization? Given enough time do you believe they will cease to exist in our current culture? Is it passable to re-orient the culture to prevent this? If so how? Is not a return to traditional marriage merely an invitation to its destruction a second time? How would traditional marriage thrive when you believe it was crushed by the assent of modernity? What will make it a sustainable institution that was lacking previously?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mark,</p>
<p>&#8220;The question, then, is this: can strong families, based on two parents but including extended family members, exist in a culture where individual choice is elevated to the highest value? I think the answer is no.&#8221;</p>
<p>Questions. Do we live in a culture where individual choice is elevated to the highest value? Are there strong families, based on two parents but including extended family members? Do you feel that these families then exist today a ruins of a past civilization? Given enough time do you believe they will cease to exist in our current culture? Is it passable to re-orient the culture to prevent this? If so how? Is not a return to traditional marriage merely an invitation to its destruction a second time? How would traditional marriage thrive when you believe it was crushed by the assent of modernity? What will make it a sustainable institution that was lacking previously?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark T. Mitchell</title>
		<link>http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2009/07/family-matters/#comment-8834</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark T. Mitchell</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Jul 2009 17:27:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/?p=4953#comment-8834</guid>
		<description>Lew,
You raise a very interesting question. Of course, in the back of my mind I was thinking in terms of marriage as the best way to ensure an intact family, but your Sweden example is interesting and I don&#039;t know enough about Sweden to answer. Do Swedish couples who co-habitate but do not marry tend to stay together? If so, why? Is there a social expectation that couples (married or not) who have children are obligated to remain together for the good of the family? If so, that&#039;s an interesting and good dynamic. 

It seems to me that when marriage is seen merely as a &quot;life-style choice&quot; based on mutual consent and a civil contract that can be broken at any time for any reason (no-fault divorce), marriage is not really doing the job it traditionally has done. Marriage as a sacrament or a solemn covenant entered into in the presence of God and only exited with much difficulty does, among other things, encourage stable marriages (but not always happy ones). 

Ultimately, it seems to me that once the stigma of out of wedlock births was removed, and once sex and procreation was clearly, obviously, and easily separated, then the complex connections between sex, marriage, and children was lost. When those natural bonds were dissolved, then these things that were tightly joined and served to form families and keep them intact were lost. Sex, marriage, and children were all reduced merely to individual choice. The question, then, is this: can strong families, based on two parents but including extended family members, exist in a culture where individual choice is elevated to the highest value?

I think the answer is no. If that is true, then either a) we must be willing to forfeit the good of strong families on the altar of choice, or b) we need to find a good higher than individual choice. That points us back in the direction of teleology, God, religion, the common good. Such notions might warm the heart of a traditionalist but they will raise the hackles of plenty.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Lew,<br />
You raise a very interesting question. Of course, in the back of my mind I was thinking in terms of marriage as the best way to ensure an intact family, but your Sweden example is interesting and I don&#8217;t know enough about Sweden to answer. Do Swedish couples who co-habitate but do not marry tend to stay together? If so, why? Is there a social expectation that couples (married or not) who have children are obligated to remain together for the good of the family? If so, that&#8217;s an interesting and good dynamic. </p>
<p>It seems to me that when marriage is seen merely as a &#8220;life-style choice&#8221; based on mutual consent and a civil contract that can be broken at any time for any reason (no-fault divorce), marriage is not really doing the job it traditionally has done. Marriage as a sacrament or a solemn covenant entered into in the presence of God and only exited with much difficulty does, among other things, encourage stable marriages (but not always happy ones). </p>
<p>Ultimately, it seems to me that once the stigma of out of wedlock births was removed, and once sex and procreation was clearly, obviously, and easily separated, then the complex connections between sex, marriage, and children was lost. When those natural bonds were dissolved, then these things that were tightly joined and served to form families and keep them intact were lost. Sex, marriage, and children were all reduced merely to individual choice. The question, then, is this: can strong families, based on two parents but including extended family members, exist in a culture where individual choice is elevated to the highest value?</p>
<p>I think the answer is no. If that is true, then either a) we must be willing to forfeit the good of strong families on the altar of choice, or b) we need to find a good higher than individual choice. That points us back in the direction of teleology, God, religion, the common good. Such notions might warm the heart of a traditionalist but they will raise the hackles of plenty.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dan</title>
		<link>http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2009/07/family-matters/#comment-8725</link>
		<dc:creator>Dan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 29 Jul 2009 15:16:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/?p=4953#comment-8725</guid>
		<description>Mark,

A good read and I think you&#039;ve right that larger issues of family and culture are often neglected in the political debate regarding the family. Unsurprisingly I think traditionalists need a greater appreciation for the argument that,

&quot;the so-called traditional family is merely a form of patriarchal power masquerading as domestic bliss and that we can choose better arrangements built on mutual respect and equitable distribution of power.&quot;

This is not the sum of the family as you rightfully argued. The debate should be about how we live together, how to best hand down culture, and how to preserve human dignity. Traditional marriage has often been a tool of patriarchal power that has violated human dignity.

The most obvious example is the tradition of spousal rape which is often legally sanctioned (It&#039;s illegality is very new and counter to the tradition of spousal sexual obligations). In many states in this country it is a lesser crime, often falling under mere spousal abuse.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mark,</p>
<p>A good read and I think you&#8217;ve right that larger issues of family and culture are often neglected in the political debate regarding the family. Unsurprisingly I think traditionalists need a greater appreciation for the argument that,</p>
<p>&#8220;the so-called traditional family is merely a form of patriarchal power masquerading as domestic bliss and that we can choose better arrangements built on mutual respect and equitable distribution of power.&#8221;</p>
<p>This is not the sum of the family as you rightfully argued. The debate should be about how we live together, how to best hand down culture, and how to preserve human dignity. Traditional marriage has often been a tool of patriarchal power that has violated human dignity.</p>
<p>The most obvious example is the tradition of spousal rape which is often legally sanctioned (It&#8217;s illegality is very new and counter to the tradition of spousal sexual obligations). In many states in this country it is a lesser crime, often falling under mere spousal abuse.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lew Daly</title>
		<link>http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2009/07/family-matters/#comment-8698</link>
		<dc:creator>Lew Daly</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 29 Jul 2009 05:14:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/?p=4953#comment-8698</guid>
		<description>Mark: Thank you for this post. I notice that you did not mention marriage and wonder what you think about the fact that in Sweden parents increasingly co-habit rather than marry, yet Swedish children are much more likely to live with both parents than children here are, where marriage is more prevalent. How important is marriage from the standpoint of children? It seems to be very important here (where cohabitations are less enduring and children in cohabiting households fare less well) but less so elsewhere. I wonder why. 

I also second your concerns about the dissolution of extended family living. Actually, this is an area where Marx (or a Marxist point of view) is revealing and sympathetic. I interpret it as a question of the family economy--not family production but the non-money economy of nurture, learning, moral formation, and intergenerational support. The value of these activities--call it our combined family capital--is not small compared to the value of market goods and services. The problem is, this family value is not commercial. Locally-centered extended families expand the amount of time and energy devoted to non-market exchange. They create too much decommodified space, time-use, risk-pooling, etc., for capitalism to thrive.

thx,Lew</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mark: Thank you for this post. I notice that you did not mention marriage and wonder what you think about the fact that in Sweden parents increasingly co-habit rather than marry, yet Swedish children are much more likely to live with both parents than children here are, where marriage is more prevalent. How important is marriage from the standpoint of children? It seems to be very important here (where cohabitations are less enduring and children in cohabiting households fare less well) but less so elsewhere. I wonder why. </p>
<p>I also second your concerns about the dissolution of extended family living. Actually, this is an area where Marx (or a Marxist point of view) is revealing and sympathetic. I interpret it as a question of the family economy&#8211;not family production but the non-money economy of nurture, learning, moral formation, and intergenerational support. The value of these activities&#8211;call it our combined family capital&#8211;is not small compared to the value of market goods and services. The problem is, this family value is not commercial. Locally-centered extended families expand the amount of time and energy devoted to non-market exchange. They create too much decommodified space, time-use, risk-pooling, etc., for capitalism to thrive.</p>
<p>thx,Lew</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Cd * The Family Cat * Magic Happens *</title>
		<link>http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2009/07/family-matters/#comment-8662</link>
		<dc:creator>Cd * The Family Cat * Magic Happens *</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Jul 2009 08:22:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/?p=4953#comment-8662</guid>
		<description>[...] Front Porch Republic » Blog Archive » Family Matters    Share and Enjoy: [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Front Porch Republic » Blog Archive » Family Matters    Share and Enjoy: [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Carl Scott</title>
		<link>http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2009/07/family-matters/#comment-8657</link>
		<dc:creator>Carl Scott</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Jul 2009 05:31:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/?p=4953#comment-8657</guid>
		<description>Great, great, stuff Mark, I can tell even from my 75% of sentences read skim!  Keep at it. I recommend chapter 7 from Chantal Delsol&#039;s Unlearned Lessons of the 20th Century for further reflection.  I also seem to recall some worthwhile stuff in Hegel&#039;s Lectures on the Philosophy of World History on the family...i.e., worthwhile as far as the endless seductive whirlpool that is Hegel goes.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great, great, stuff Mark, I can tell even from my 75% of sentences read skim!  Keep at it. I recommend chapter 7 from Chantal Delsol&#8217;s Unlearned Lessons of the 20th Century for further reflection.  I also seem to recall some worthwhile stuff in Hegel&#8217;s Lectures on the Philosophy of World History on the family&#8230;i.e., worthwhile as far as the endless seductive whirlpool that is Hegel goes.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Empedocles</title>
		<link>http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2009/07/family-matters/#comment-8632</link>
		<dc:creator>Empedocles</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Jul 2009 20:43:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/?p=4953#comment-8632</guid>
		<description>What is needed is a discussion of norms and normal.  Are we talking historically average? Currently average?  Something other than average?  I suggest we become familiar with philosopher Ruth Millikan&#039;s notion of Normal (with a capital &quot;N&quot;).  Normal is not average, or even necessarily frequent, but the conditions under which something historically is successful at performing its function.  In this sense one man and one woman is Normal for the production of children. The question is that what are the Normal conditions for the successful raising of children? At last count 40% of the children being born in this country are born out of wedlock, up from 2% in the 1950s--an increase of 2000%. A vast body of research shows that children raised in single-parent homes are at far greater risk of poverty, school dropout, delinquency, teen pregnancy, adult joblessness, and other problems.  It seems to me that having at least the two parents who conceived the child raise the child, is thus Normal for raising children.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What is needed is a discussion of norms and normal.  Are we talking historically average? Currently average?  Something other than average?  I suggest we become familiar with philosopher Ruth Millikan&#8217;s notion of Normal (with a capital &#8220;N&#8221;).  Normal is not average, or even necessarily frequent, but the conditions under which something historically is successful at performing its function.  In this sense one man and one woman is Normal for the production of children. The question is that what are the Normal conditions for the successful raising of children? At last count 40% of the children being born in this country are born out of wedlock, up from 2% in the 1950s&#8211;an increase of 2000%. A vast body of research shows that children raised in single-parent homes are at far greater risk of poverty, school dropout, delinquency, teen pregnancy, adult joblessness, and other problems.  It seems to me that having at least the two parents who conceived the child raise the child, is thus Normal for raising children.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John Médaille</title>
		<link>http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2009/07/family-matters/#comment-8612</link>
		<dc:creator>John Médaille</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Jul 2009 18:19:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/?p=4953#comment-8612</guid>
		<description>DW, yea, well they took their time. I kept wanting to send them &quot;how do it it&quot; books, but my wife kept vetoing the idea, which just shows how unreasonable women are.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>DW, yea, well they took their time. I kept wanting to send them &#8220;how do it it&#8221; books, but my wife kept vetoing the idea, which just shows how unreasonable women are.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: D.W. Sabin</title>
		<link>http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2009/07/family-matters/#comment-8610</link>
		<dc:creator>D.W. Sabin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Jul 2009 17:47:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/?p=4953#comment-8610</guid>
		<description>Not to further muddy the waters but in earlier days, a homestead included a variety of help, usually lodged on premises, sometimes seasonal or migratory but just as surely integrated into the nuclear family as the less than still-productive grand parents. Sure there were distinctions between blood and outsiders but familial loyalties and interactions were quite a lot more complex than today and so it is no wonder that the relativism of today would seem to be destroying any remaining meaning or norm in the concept of family. Historically, the family was the basic unit of self-reliant subsistence and it extended to the Clan when required. Much of the value of the family, like an awful lot in this commodified paradise of diminishing service jobs has been deflated in value because a lot of it is not based upon familial responsibilities any longer...at least to a meaningful degree. Needless to say, the Clan is now a virtual clan. The cause and effect-averse &quot;modern&quot; society has inflated the value of sentimental love and deflated the meaning of love defined by shared responsibility. Parents want to be friends of their children and children want to distance themselves from this &quot;friend&quot;.  Much of modern family life is manifested in sentimental yearnings made ever-more inchoate by the odd compulsions of individuals that are expressed in groups today. There is little time together in the &quot;modern&quot; nuclear family and so there is little time for anything beyond the most facile sentimental expressions. Even time spent together..in the car or watching movies or television is not time really interacting so much as time spent in co-spectatorship. This does not mean deeply abiding love and responsibility are absent, they are simply muddled and intruded upon by a very noisome popular technocratic culture. Conservatives are arguing with liberals over something that is already gone...to a degree. 

The Pursuit of Happiness planted a seed that oddly bears a fruit called ennui.

Medaille, you lucky dog. My kids have yet to produce the grandkiddies and will likely delay it until I&#039;m enfeebled because during a moment of peevishness, I once suggested that I could not wait till they had kids themselves so I could show up with a Trampoline, some Twinkies and Peppermint Schnapps and re-pay them their various and sundry insurrectional behaviors.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Not to further muddy the waters but in earlier days, a homestead included a variety of help, usually lodged on premises, sometimes seasonal or migratory but just as surely integrated into the nuclear family as the less than still-productive grand parents. Sure there were distinctions between blood and outsiders but familial loyalties and interactions were quite a lot more complex than today and so it is no wonder that the relativism of today would seem to be destroying any remaining meaning or norm in the concept of family. Historically, the family was the basic unit of self-reliant subsistence and it extended to the Clan when required. Much of the value of the family, like an awful lot in this commodified paradise of diminishing service jobs has been deflated in value because a lot of it is not based upon familial responsibilities any longer&#8230;at least to a meaningful degree. Needless to say, the Clan is now a virtual clan. The cause and effect-averse &#8220;modern&#8221; society has inflated the value of sentimental love and deflated the meaning of love defined by shared responsibility. Parents want to be friends of their children and children want to distance themselves from this &#8220;friend&#8221;.  Much of modern family life is manifested in sentimental yearnings made ever-more inchoate by the odd compulsions of individuals that are expressed in groups today. There is little time together in the &#8220;modern&#8221; nuclear family and so there is little time for anything beyond the most facile sentimental expressions. Even time spent together..in the car or watching movies or television is not time really interacting so much as time spent in co-spectatorship. This does not mean deeply abiding love and responsibility are absent, they are simply muddled and intruded upon by a very noisome popular technocratic culture. Conservatives are arguing with liberals over something that is already gone&#8230;to a degree. </p>
<p>The Pursuit of Happiness planted a seed that oddly bears a fruit called ennui.</p>
<p>Medaille, you lucky dog. My kids have yet to produce the grandkiddies and will likely delay it until I&#8217;m enfeebled because during a moment of peevishness, I once suggested that I could not wait till they had kids themselves so I could show up with a Trampoline, some Twinkies and Peppermint Schnapps and re-pay them their various and sundry insurrectional behaviors.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark T. Mitchell</title>
		<link>http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2009/07/family-matters/#comment-8600</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark T. Mitchell</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Jul 2009 16:17:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/?p=4953#comment-8600</guid>
		<description>John,
Maybe I wasn&#039;t clear enough, but that is exactly my point. Idealizing either the nuclear family or the family born merely of individual choice are both wrong.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>John,<br />
Maybe I wasn&#8217;t clear enough, but that is exactly my point. Idealizing either the nuclear family or the family born merely of individual choice are both wrong.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John Médaille</title>
		<link>http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2009/07/family-matters/#comment-8579</link>
		<dc:creator>John Médaille</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Jul 2009 12:29:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/?p=4953#comment-8579</guid>
		<description>Actually, I don&#039;t think the nuclear family is history&#039;s norm; the extended family is. The nuclear family is an isolated affair, better than no family to be sure, but severely limited. Children need not just parents, but grand-parents and cousins, uncles and aunts.

But then, I am prejudiced. I have two-and-a-half grandchildren, and as the old saying has it, if I had known that grandchildren were this much fun, I would have had them first.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Actually, I don&#8217;t think the nuclear family is history&#8217;s norm; the extended family is. The nuclear family is an isolated affair, better than no family to be sure, but severely limited. Children need not just parents, but grand-parents and cousins, uncles and aunts.</p>
<p>But then, I am prejudiced. I have two-and-a-half grandchildren, and as the old saying has it, if I had known that grandchildren were this much fun, I would have had them first.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

