Marxist: I wonder if anyone will confront you on the fact that Marxism is
responsible for close to 100 million deaths in the 20th Century. The irony is
those who believe, "but this time it will be different!" Naive, if
families transcend political structures, and fads, and have been around since
the first of us... so it's hard to characterize their importance to modern
concepts like technology or our current political whimsies. People just assume
that since they've been around forever, they'll still be around when
the frenzies of the latest social innovations die down.
"In economics, markets and enterprise are driven by family
attitudes and perceptions." Nice try, Eyres, but markets and enterprises
are driven by the need for profit under capitalism. Modern capitalism no more
has a need for families than did slavery before it.
Lagomorph. The Family, as the Eyres have clearly stated, do not supplant
"Rugged individulism!" "Rugged individulism" conflicts with
family only when it becomes more important than family, which it obviously has
for many fathers, mothers and society. Society has tried to replace "rugged
individualism" with "Equality," something that has been very
destructive for families. Men and women, ignorantly, foolishly, or sometimes
wantonly, pursue government answers and legislation that is laughable in its
failure. Society decries the disappearance of fathers as if this is a
surprising phenomena. Just look in the mirror, instead of using the lazy
man's approach to patriotism and solving problems--just paying taxes and
supporting another dead end government program!
Families are indeed important, but the Eyres would do well to choose better
examples to support their thesis. As Tolstoy points out, their last bullet
point is patently untrue and betrays an ignorance of basic biology. Within
nature, there are thousands of "family" structures, ranging from mitosis
and vegetative reproduction to polygyny and polyandry to nest parasitism
(cuckoos) and parthenogenesis. The "Mom and Dad nurturing offspring through
the formative stages" model is by far the exception in nature, not the rule.
Even within the mammals (or just the primates), many different family
structures exist. (Perhaps the Eyres were referring to taxonomy, where every
species does exist within a family, but that is an entirely different meaning of
the word.)The American character does not revolve around the family.
"Rugged individualism," not "rugged familialism," is the
defining American trait. Nathan Hale regretted giving only "one life,"
not "one family" for his country. It's "one man, one
vote," not "one family, one vote." Adam Smith's capitalism is
based on individual self-interest, not the interest of the group. If families
are the atomic nucleus, then individuals are the neutrons and protons that
@drbridellFrom the article "In nature, everything that grows is in a
family" reading the article before commenting can move the conversation
along much more smoothly. They do also make the same claim about humans but as
we all know children are not always born into families and are often born to
Tolstoy,I think the Eyres are talking about Human Beings, not Sea Turtles
sorry that should be I can not I an
So many false claims and erroneous assumptions were does one even begin? Let
start with the most basic, nature, it is blatantly false to claim that
everything is born into families, the most familiar example would be sea
turtles. In terms of sociology I an tell you as a professional sociologist that
claims that your claims about sociology are likewise blatantly false. As I said
before there are so many false claims and erroneous assumptions are made in this
article that it would take an entire article length comment to refute them all.