
Could the Nuclear Family Be the Reason We’re All Miserable? - acjohnson55
https://medium.com/@NSallakAnderson/pretty-birds-in-pretty-cages-could-the-nuclear-family-be-the-reason-were-all-miserable-46126d573263
======
markshead
The article wouldn't have been as marketable if the title was "Could Not Doing
Things With Others Be The Reason We are Lonely?" Yet at the bottom of the
article the author explains that she joined a group of other people who were
also caring for their children and made friends. That has always been the
solution to feeling lonely and isolated.

We could find all kinds of things to blame from television to HVAC systems to
larger houses to the Internet. Picking nuclear families as a target seems like
quite a stretch. There are plenty of pictures from the time period she
mentions that show people outside talking over fences, on their front porches,
helping each other, and otherwise interacting with people around them. When we
stop doing those types of things, we get lonely. The social unit of nuclear
families isn't the reason people feel isolated.

~~~
mc32
I think another thing is the definition of nuclear family and making
implications about that.

Nuclear family, in vernacular tends to mean a fam where there is a mother
figure, father figure (this includes same sex couples) children and by
extension associated relatives (grandparents, cousins, etc) who you have some
contact with, as opposed to a family where there is either a missing mother
figure, father figure or both or those figures are peripheral and often times
absent (aka broken homes).

Of course, we can define a nuclear family to mean other things as well
depending on context as well as to serve a narrative.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
> ... as opposed to a family where there is either a missing mother figure,
> father figure or both or those figures are peripheral and often times absent
> (aka broken homes).

Not at all. The nuclear family is a family as you describe, as opposed to one
living with extended family (grandparents, for instance).

~~~
mc32
Isn't, however, this gandparental extended family just the previous gen
nuclear family?

There is no reason to consider a nuclear family an island onto itself.
Extended families are often times, but not always, the linking of
multigenerational nuclear families. Now, one can have extended families that
are not blood relatives.

But yeah, it is tricky sometimes. If you get shipped off to aunts and uncles
or other relatives while mom and dad figs stay together because of issues
beyond their control that may not be a nuclear family as it is disruptive to
the kids.

~~~
WorldMaker
I think the context in the article here is "nuclear family [as household
unit]", with the elided part in square brackets implied. So there may be no
reason in general to consider the nuclear family an island unto itself, but
this article _is_ referring to the trend to think of a nuclear family as a
household unit (island) unto itself.

~~~
mc32
A nuclear family as a unit unto itself is most evident when people move to the
city or cross country for [reason]. Then you rely on the tendrils offered by
modern communication till you establish yourself and begin forming new local
relationships. In some settings it may be difficult to do.

It can be difficult in the suburbs as elicited in Robert Adams's "New West"[1]
and it can also be difficult in the dense cityscapes of Japan[2].

We can dream of the times people were born and died in the same house or
village and lived in multigenerational houses out of need rather than will.
Today economies are different and the way we organize depends on many things,
economic ability, economic forces, culture, etc. Some for the better, others
for the worse.

[1][http://www.anothermag.com/art-photography/8618/robert-
adams-...](http://www.anothermag.com/art-photography/8618/robert-adams-the-
new-west)

[2][https://longreads.com/2017/12/01/a-lonely-death-the-
extreme-...](https://longreads.com/2017/12/01/a-lonely-death-the-extreme-
isolation-of-japans-elderly/)

------
paulus_magnus2
“Neoliberal democracy. Instead of citizens, it produces consumers. Instead of
communities, it produces shopping malls. The net result is an atomized society
of disengaged individuals who feel demoralized and socially powerless.

In sum, neoliberalism is the immediate and foremost enemy of genuine
participatory democracy, not just in the United States but across the planet,
and will be for the foreseeable future.”

― Noam Chomsky

~~~
quantumofmalice
Somewhat humorously, this sentiment could just as easily have been lifted from
an alt-right blog as from a radically left website.

Interesting times.

~~~
flukus
Because "the left" has all but abandoned the working class. The used to care
about shopping malls taking out the little guys and global trade undermining
local jobs but the former is now seen as unwilling to adapt to the new economy
and the later is seen as racist. "White male" is now used as an insult when it
should form the core of the left.

The alt-right has just filled the void.

------
sailfast
Being part of a Nuclear family doesn't mean that you can't branch out and be
more involved in a community. Raising kids is hard, and can be lonely but also
gives you a strong bond and shared experience to talk to a HUGE part of the
world and make introductions.

The community, layout of housing, etc are all extremely impactful on this. So
too, is the ability of the community to organize. You can have a GREAT
community in a cookie cutter suburb. This is especially true if you have
communal gathering areas like a pool, park, etc.

I guess what I'm saying is that the Nuclear family is not the underlying
reason for any of this. The ability to be alone if one wants to be alone for
all things (think about how technology has basically enabled you to function
without any human interaction if you choose, and people DO choose this), and
the idea that you're being rude by taking the risk of saying hello is a larger
cause.

EDIT/ corollary: Advice to new parents - try to find a place with other young
families. They're all looking for this connection. These are some of the
strongest networks that you will find especially if they live in close
proximity.

~~~
markshead
At the bottom of her post she says she did just what you suggest. She started
interacting with other people. I don't think the whole "nuclear family causes
misery" thing made much sense. She evidently didn't either since her solution
to being lonely was to go do things with other people rather than trying to
change her family social unit.

~~~
Bartweiss
Honestly, that author's note at the bottom reads a lot like "this whole post
is wrong, but I already wrote it."

If joining shared-interest groups solves isolation induced misery, then the
nuclear family isn't an irreparable problem. It's at worst one factor in
broader atomization, and should be viewed as such.

------
iamcasen
Spot on. This is something my wife and I have known for a while now. The
shitty part of this reality, is that there isn't much anyone who isn't
extremely can do about it. In countries like Denmark, there are many apartment
communities which have communal areas and kitchens, which allows folks to have
"villages" in close quarters to city centers.

My experience on the west coast of the USA however, is that no such thing
exists outside of convalescent homes for elderly people.

Some people have gone to extreme lengths to buy up land with a 503c corp in
order to create communes in the countryside, which is great! While that solves
the issues around villages and communal living, it divorces itself from the
life and culture of society at large. How can we still benefit from communal
living, while still providing the option to work a modern job in a downtown
office?

~~~
jcbrand
Next up: "Could modern work in downtown offices be the reason why we're all
miserable?"

I'm only half joking.

I'm becoming more and more convinced that staring at a computer screen 40+
hours a week is not healthy at all. Couple that with the known psychological
ill-effects of social media together with the hysterical, outrage-driven news-
cycle, which we consume while staring into said screens, and the effect is
downright toxic for mental and physical health and general happiness.

~~~
maxxxxx
It's pretty much a given that staring at a screen 40+ hours is bad for you.
It's bad physically and mentally. I used to take long trips between 6 and 8
weeks for vacation and I always noticed how after a few weeks I started seeing
the world around me much clearer than when I work. I think we are losing the
ability to take a break.

~~~
leggomylibro
>I think we are losing the ability to take a break.

I'm not sure if it's just me, but I've been feeling a huge sense of urgency
lately. The news just keeps coming that endemic corruption has finally eaten
through the woodwork, and I feel like if I don't take the opportunity to learn
while the learning is good, I'll be screwed in 2-5 years when the norms
collapse.

I guess that's a similar mindset to 'preppers', but I'm focusing on knowledge
rather than things. Soon enough, I probably won't be _able_ to look up how
to...oh I dunno, make a blacksmithing forge on the cheap.

Maybe if we felt like we lived in a stable situation, we'd be more able to
step back and breathe. Relentlessly tap-dancing on quicksand isn't good for
anyone's mental health.

~~~
maxxxxx
When you look at today's world compared to the first half of the 20th century
this is nothing if that is of any comfort.

~~~
leggomylibro
It is, but the people in those eras bled and died for the protections that we
are starting to eschew rather than strengthen. And people _do_ have less time
today than they did in the early 20th century. Smartphones have made sure of
that. Maybe it's a moral failing to waste a significant amount of time on
them, but do you know many people who don't? It seems more like a reliable
exploit than an individual failing to me.

"Things used to be worse" cannot be used to excuse "things will not get
better."

~~~
maxxxxx
"Things used to be worse" cannot be used to excuse "things will not get
better."

Certainly not. But we shouldn't forget that we have it pretty good and make
sure we keep it that way and build upon it.

------
ianbicking
I think a lot of people here are missing the psychological effects of the
nuclear family because of a focus on housing or community.

I think she's right to point at the nuclear family, because of what it is:
self-sufficient. Income, forming a household, reproducing the structure in the
next generation, it's all there. You don't need other people. And when you
don't need other people, it's easier to go it alone. It's easier for other
people to go it alone. You don't have your friends help you move, instead you
hire movers. You don't cook together, at best you host, and then as we dive
into modernity we neither host nor cook. We hire people to watch the kids. We
don't want to burden other people. We don't actually NEED help, so we don't
ask for help. We'll finish it all off by hiring people to watch us die.

I see some wisdom in the conservative critique that the state should not
replace family, should not replace mutual support, that needing each other is
a gift for both the person who needs and the person provides help. But it's
not government per se, it's the professionalization of support.

It's small, but I have extended family that shares carpooling for the kids. We
need to talk about schedules, and sometimes we resent each other, and we take
over for each other when someone is sick, and it can be annoying, but I see
all these kids regularly, and we can't fall out of contact.

I SHOULD invite people over for dinner, except also have them help me prepare
for dinner, maybe even clean for dinner. I personally would not be offended to
myself receive such an invitation. But I don't do it. It would pierce the
facade on our nuclear family, and my wife is not comfortable with compromising
that facade. (Being a man I don't place any self-worth in my housekeeping, and
so it is admittedly easier for me to expose any failings.)

~~~
kelnos
> I SHOULD invite people over for dinner, except also have them help me
> prepare for dinner, maybe even clean for dinner.

This bit really resonated with me. I don't personally enjoy cooking. My
girlfriend and I have started doing it reasonably often for simple, easy-to-
prepare meals. We ended up hosting Thanksgiving at my place this year, and
almost everyone showed up early, either bringing something to eat, or bringing
some raw materials of things so we could prep and cook together. It was _so
much fun_ , and was a truly worthwhile and bonding collective experience. We'd
done this in previous years, but this was the first time I hosted, and it
actually felt really different from that perspective.

My friends and I haven't done this for random non-holiday occasions, but I'd
really like to do this again.

~~~
eitally
It's a "thing", too -- Friendsgiving. And it is fabulous, and hopefully has
become the stimulus folks needed to casually reopen their doors at dinner time
to any of their friends and neighbors. I miss this from when I was a kid [born
in '77].

------
Fricken
I was entertaining the theory the other day that when families first emigrate
they carry over customs from the farms or inner city neighbourhoods they came
from, but following generations lose touch with those customs as the new built
environment is no longer facilitates them.

I was on a Sunday evening bike ride in the summer, in an older but still
suburban style neighbourhood with lots of immigrants. The kids were all out
playing, the neighbours were hanging out on their front porches and mingling
with other neighbours doing the same. I was like 'wow, this is like the
idyllic 1950's vision of the suburbs except everyone is brown.' Then you get
out to the newer outer ring suburbs where all the white people live and nobody
is outside.

There are things like getting exercise and talking to your neighbours that are
essential for a person's health and happiness, but when their circumstances
make these things unessecary there is a tendency not to do them. We're
suffering because of it.

The whole uptopian notion of the mechanized garden city that America embraced
as the standard model for modernity was poorly thought out. Now it's like a
paperclip maximizing AI: Mindless and unstoppable.

~~~
geebee
That's interesting - but it seems like the absence of kids playing outside is
very recent in US culture. I grew in, in SF west of twin peaks, and all kids
played outside unsupervised for hours. This had been true for generations,
going way back, through wave after wave of families, both immigrant from
overseas, relocated from other parts the US, or born and bred in SF.

This really doesn't happen where I live in SF neighborhood (with two kids),
nowhere near to the same extent. And it still is a very immigrant heavy
neighborhood, and unusually diverse in terms of country of origin, even by
SF's (perhaps diminishing) standards.

Part of the reason, I think, is critical mass. of kids I'd happily allow my
kids to play outside, but there isn't a giant mass of kids already out there,
which was the case when I was younger. This may partly be due to the collapse
in the child age population in SF (not a collapse, it seems, in infant or
toddler ages, it's stroller bumper cars around, but people often move when
their kids get older). In my time (early 70s to today), it's gone from like
25% to below 14%, which in such a short time does represent a kind of
collapse.

But even that doesn't seem to explain it, since the less expensive SFH
neighborhoods south of 280 are still the parts of SF with percentages of under
18 residents similar to the more remote 'burbs.

But it got to the point where I enrolled my kid in the YMCA school after-care
program, because it seems like that is where most of the after school
socializing goes on now. It is somewhat unstructured, schoolyard play, but
there's an authority figure around to appeal to. I don't want to overly
nostalgize the lack of any supervision when I was a kid, there actually was
some bad shit, but no doubt, kids are growing up in an environment that is
different from the zero supervision environment I had when I was a kid.
Something is probably lost in all this as well.

------
cannonedhamster
I think that the issue is less to do with the family and more to do with the
fact that as an adult most of your adult interaction comes from your
profession. Your friends as a child and young adult come from school, as an
adult they only come from social groups that form around things such as
sports, hobbies, and social groups such as a church.

With a move to first world status there is usually an associated decrease in
religious adherence. People then naturally define themselves as what they do
first. Getting friends as an adult is very hard as competing schedules and
interests can conspire to push people apart, so the default is to make friends
with those with whom your work. As a stay at home parent that requires
actually seeking out the parental groups.

tl;dr making friends as an adult is difficult and can lead to loneliness.

~~~
kylehotchkiss
As somebody who tried to find a community with religious adherence, I can
sadly report making friends in that environment is equally difficult as it is
in the real world, you still have to impress people, adopt their vocabulary,
etc.

~~~
cannonedhamster
It can certainly be difficult regardless of whether or not there is a defined
place, but the benefits of a repeated time and place for events, much like
sports bars, is what I was getting at. In a sports bar you would still need to
support the local team and learn the lingo to impress people, but that doesn't
mean it's easy.

------
copperx
I grew up in Mexico, where extended family is usually part of one's daily
life. Upon moving to the States, I first experienced freedom. Extended family
provides joy, companionship, and support, but it also can create worry,
anxiety, and the feeling that you must support them emotionally and there's a
need, financially too. Not unlike having a big group of friends.

After coming to the US I understood that being alone, freeing yourself from
the extended family brings focus to your work. No longer do you have to worry
about this big group of people; you can start thinking about just yourself,
your work, and your schedule. A nuclear family could be a worry too, but it is
something that's perhaps more predictable, as the group is more homogeneous
and close to you.

After a few years, I started noticing the loneliness. First as overwhelming
silence, which at first I enjoyed because I'm an introvert. Then it became
obvious to me that most people have simple life problems that could be so
easily solved with a big support network. Can someone care for my kids today?
Or my pets for a few days? In an extended family situation, you can find
someone that would gladly do that for you. They want to see your kids, they
know your pets. Are you feeling really sick? Someone from your family will
drop by and make sure you have something to eat. These things create a feeling
that "someone out there cares for you" that is unmatched even by friends. You
wouldn't want to burden your friends. And perhaps your friends will offer to
help, but it's nothing like the unconditional support offered by the extended
family. Your friends will usually be of your same age, and thus facing the
same challenges in life. Your extended family will include retirees,
homemakers, and other people with free time that are always willing to trade
time for companionship. And once you reach old age, you will do the same for
your younger relatives.

~~~
b_t_s
totally agree. My wife comes from that sort of background. We're both super
jealous of her older sister who lives with husband, kids, grandparents, and a
couple aunts/uncles/cousins. She is going back to college, never has to cook a
meal, and always has someone to watch the kids on a moments notice. By
contrast my wife works harder as a stay at home mom and is generally more
stressed and depressed here in the states. No amount of effort spent joining
groups and arranging playdates even comes close replacing the casual
socialization and miscellaneous bits of support that happens naturally in an
extended family.

------
pipio21
In my opinion people have forgotten how artificial life has become in the West
specially in places like the US.

Cities are not designed for walking but for moving with a car. In Winter
streets are cold and depressing without light.

People have no friends, they eat fast food, could not sleep because they need
the time for commuting or stress anxiety.

This as a whole makes people miserable.

It is not being alone. I go kayaking in Argentina with very few people and it
is just amazing experience and you are almost alone in nature.

It is just the need to reconnect with the basic essence of humans and nature.
Friends, sleeping what you need, love, not just sex, eating well.

We tend to postpone the basics and say "I will sleep well, or eat well, or
spend time with family, lovers and friends when I made it". The business deal,
the loan is paid but as a result the inner self becomes void, and life flies
by.

We have to live an artificial life, there is no other way to feed an
exponential growth population, but we have to be careful not going too far.

~~~
CM30
> Cities are not designed for walking but for moving with a car. In Winter
> streets are cold and depressing without light.

Isn't this more of an American thing? Over here in Europe, most cities seem
perfectly walkable, with their general designs staying the same as they were
before cars took off and the streets remaining as lively as ever.

------
tmnvix
My memory on this is a bit hazy, but I seem to remember reading that the
nuclear family and tee-totalling were related social developments that were in
part motivated by social isolation.

If I remember correctly, the story goes that in Scotland there was a time that
strong spirits were cheap and readily available, and that this led to many of
the usual social occasions degenerating into widespread drunkenness.

To those wanting to avoid this, the only available option was to withdraw from
the now 'toxic' community. These people that abstained from drinking spirits
and no longer participated in the usual social occasions became _both_ the
tee-totallers and what we now call 'nuclear' families (because all socialising
was now only with immediate family - picnics, etc).

edit:

(from _The Oxford Companion to Scottish History_ )

"Temperance was a great radical popular movement in 19th- and early 20th-
century Scotland. It affected the lives of millions who organized themselves
outwith the accepted structures of a society cemented by the giving and
sharing of drink, played a central part in the development of ideologies of
self—improvement and of domestic happiness based on the nuclear family..."

------
armandososa
I'm not miserable. Most people I know aren't either. Maybe I hang out with the
wrong crowd?

~~~
3princip
Seconded. I hang out with my nuclear family most of the time. It's awesome.
Hard work and lot's of responsibility, but rewarding. To be honest, a career
seems so much less significant since I've had children.

The article reads like a case greener grass. Perhaps there were other factors
which led to the loneliness and unhappiness, rather than the concept itself.

------
LeoJiWoo
This is really a loaded article giving a false dilemma fallacy, and seems like
projection from a lonely person.

A nuclear family doesn't inherently make us miserable, nor does it force us to
avoid our extended family. No one is stopping the author from meeting other
moms or other people.

In my town, many moms (of many different races too) meet up at the local
coffee shop, they trade tips, setup play dates, and sometimes they even go
shopping together.

She could visit her extended family, she could make friends, she could try to
be part of her community.

This kind of stuff doesn't magically happen even in the asian communities,
where we live in extended families. Plus even in extended families we have
different griefs, interfamily conflict is a common.

EDIT: Another comment now dead mentioned suburban nation. Its a good but
biased book.

It gives some good explanations of how housing subdivisions, shopping centers,
office parks, civic institutions, and roadways affect people.

------
c22
It seems like the author bought in to a specific family structure without
considering other alternatives and now, having discovered it's not her cup of
tea, wants to blame it for humanity's misery. It's not the reason we're all
miserable, but it might be the reason you are.

Many families live with grandparents, many have one or three children, some
have a single mom, a single dad, or two dads and they're all getting along
fine. Some of these families are even on the West coast!

I am currently acting as a stay at home dad in what would otherwise be a
standard American Atomic Family on the West coast of the United States. I am
not depressed and suicidal, in fact I am perhaps more content than I have ever
been. I don't mind doing _" women's work"_ and when I go to the park near
where I live there are almost always other people there. My wife does have to
sometimes rush home from work to get our daughter from preschool, but she
doesn't have to cook dinner because that's something I enjoy doing.

You can, and should, find the lifestyle and family structure that works for
you and your family.

~~~
markshead
I'm not sure the isolation she mentions is because of a nuclear family unless
there is something about her family that prohibits her from doing things with
other people. For example, going to the park as you do.

------
sigil
_> What if the reason for all of these issues ... have nothing to do with men
and women and more to do with the fact that when we left our tribes, villages
and communities to pursue the industrial dream, we cut ourselves off from the
one thing we need to be happy — each other?_

Resolving the modern life vs village life tension might be the biggest
cultural challenge of our era. David Chapman writes:

 _Systematicity was always imposed by elites. Few people wanted it, and most
would have rejected it if they could. The majority implicitly mistook material
progress as something that just happens, not fully recognizing that medicine
and jobs and roads and food and the internet depend on vast chains of
“because.” Research by Robert Kegan, a psychologist whose work has heavily
influenced my thinking on this topic, suggests that roughly two thirds of
Americans are unable to fully cope with the demands of systematic
institutions. They are “developmentally traditional people in a modern
world.”_

 _The natural human alternative is the communal mode: unstructured,
egalitarian, empathic, local, tribal, familiar, and comfortable. This
mode—I’ve also called it “choiceless”—feels profoundly right. We evolved to
live in such societies; they fit our psychology in a way systematic ones
cannot._

 _The problem is, the communal mode cannot sustain life on a planet of
billions of people, much less provide the material benefits, entertainment,
and understanding we are used to ... We currently have no workable alternative
to systematicity. This makes anti-systematic politics entirely nihilistic ...
The systematic mode can, should, must be superseded—not by the communal mode,
but by something that combines benefits of both. I think that is possible._
[1]

Chapman thinks this synthesis is possible, but he does precious little to
actually construct it: so far his work-in-progress book "Meaningness" reads
more like a tentative existence proof. On the other hand, that's the exciting
thing about it. Successfully synthesizing the modern and village modes of
existence is a greenfield project.

[1] [https://meaningness.com/metablog/communal-vs-systematic-
poli...](https://meaningness.com/metablog/communal-vs-systematic-politics)

------
dpeck
No, the nuclear family is not the reason we're all miserable, but if the
nuclear family is your sole outlet for community then it may well be.

I've recently realized that my wife and I are very much people who want a
"village" for lack of a better word. A wide circle of friends whose lives we
regularly move through as they move through ours and is in close geographic
area. It takes effort and time, especially with peoples busy schedules. It
means that we do things like host a Halloween potluck on our front lawn for
the neighborhood before we were off to trick-or-treat with the kids, that we
speak to our neighbors when we're on walks and know their dogs names, making
some encouragement signs for the elementary schools 5k run that passed in
front of our house, and dozens of other things.

We've made our home in an area that facilitates this, with a little "downtown"
area with a pharmacy, a neighborhood bar, and a few restaurants within walking
distance an easy 15 minute commute from city center. We can't go anywhere on
the weekend without seeing and talking to someone we know or being introduced
to someone we don't. And as a bit of an introvert I don't always enjoy every
interaction, but I do crave it for my family. I don't get into playing with
kids much and their volume is at time stressful, but I love seeing mine run
around with friends on long summer evenings and being so excited to see them
when we're out running errands and how my wife enjoys being able to catch up
with our friends for a shared dinner around our table or theirs on a week
night.

It also means that there is some amount of shared responsibility for each
other, which means things like being offered a generator when our power was
out for a couple of days thanks to this seasons hurricanes. It means an extra
set of hands for whatever tasks is usually no further than a text message way.
It means that our homes are full of condolences and offerings of food/child
care when there is a serious sickness or death in the family.

It takes a lot of work, and the stay at home parents (mostly women and maybe
as much as a quarter or so of the families in our group) all put a lot of
effort in facilitating these kinds of relationships, reinforcing those
connections on a daily and weekly basis that the whole profits from. Its not
for everyone, but for people like the OP finding a community like this can go
well past solving any sense of isolation.

~~~
WorldMaker
I think the argument the article is trying to make (maybe not entirely
successfully) is that your "village" concept used to be the _default_ and now
the default is strong-self-supporting nuclear family without a stronger
community. The argument, as I see it, isn't that you _can 't_ put in the work
and find a bigger community, it's that in general as a society we _don 't_, by
default (in part because it is more work now).

------
hondo77
Stay-at-home parent discovers she doesn't like being a stay-at-home parent.
Concludes society must be to blame.

Yawn.

------
xupybd
I don't know if it's the family that is the problem but the lack of community
and the fact that most couples now both work while the bulk of the child
raising falls to the mother.

It's hard to do but many of my friends have only one parent working and have a
strong community of other parents around them. It's very odd in today's world
but they've chosen to do it and it seems to be working well for them.

------
bitlax
"Suddenly, I stopped on the street corner and screamed at the top of my lungs.
I paused to look around. Not a single person so much as peeked out their
window to see what was going on. So I continued to scream until the toddler
stood up in the stroller and looked at me, wide eyed. I saw the fear and
concern on his face and began to cry."

She and I do not share the same parenting style.

------
guilhas
Family is one of the last meaningful connections. With technology,
globalization, people moving faster from place to place, never connecting with
anything or anyone anymore.

Everyone is more a alone, young, old, singles, couples, parents, men, woman...
Conflating that with having kids or a family is missing the issue.

I am all for more communal society, but also more for family and friends time,
less daily work hours, more vacation days, bigger weekends? More meaningful
online games? Better living room group activities/games? Bettrer party
activities to promote interaction? Participate in more Meetups for
socializing? Don't know...

------
erasemus
Staying at home with children is marvellous. Interactions with adult friends
are staid and stereotypical by comparison. Plus with the internet one has
access to the world's knowledge. Any boredom is therefore one's own problem.

 _> Yet we long for more than just that one perfect mate — we need to be a
part of something bigger to feel happy and alive. We need community and a
variety of ages and friends. No one person can be everything to us._

Some equivocation there. Isn't sexual adventure really just another version of
'Valium and liquor'?

------
peterwwillis
The author has a myopic view of actual trends in American society.

If the nuclear family was such a successful idea, why has unwed motherhood
been rising steadily since the 1940s, with two big peaks in the 90s and 2010s?
Has the nuclear family had an impact on parts of American society that depend
on close connections to extended family, such as Chinese, Indian, Latin, etc?
Young people are actually waiting longer to get married now, and _much_ fewer
people are getting married when they get pregnant while unwed.

------
autokad
"Recently, I was following a thread on Facebook in which several men were
debating the reasons for why it seems that men and women are drifting apart. "

politics. politics put a strong divide between white and black in the US.
"vote for me, all your problems are because of white people, white privilege"
etc. it drove both groups away from eachother like water and oil.

then that shifted between men and women, and I knew immediately what the
outcome would be.

~~~
chasing
The 500-ish of years of systemic impoverishment and using skin color as an
indicator of class and human worth has caused that strong racial divide.

Not the relatively recent trend of politicians trying to correct that social
injustice.

~~~
autokad
every race has experienced hardships, but its comments like that that divide
people in group 1: 'i didnt succeed because of my skin color' and the other
people from group 2: 'they are complaining they dont have enough because of
their skin color, calling me privileged because of my skin color, when I have
nothing either'.

you do nothing for the conversation, you only prolong the back and forth. We
are in control of our own destinies and comments like yours convince people
otherwise.

~~~
chasing
You should check out Ta-Nehisi Coates' "Between the World and Me." It's an
interesting discussion of the above -- and somewhat more nuanced than would be
possible in Hacker News comments.

[https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/25489625-between-the-
wor...](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/25489625-between-the-world-and-me)

------
rovek
I'm just trying to get over how strange a term "Nuclear family" is and how its
meaning is so mundane.

------
Toast_25
> Now that the human race is stable, we don’t need so many babies and as a
> result women don’t crave sex the way we once did.

What the actual f--k? Do people really think women work like this? How would a
womans libido magically adjust to a civilization's "stability"?

------
nextstep
I think maybe this author is overly defining nuclear family in such a way that
the issues are all really problems with living in the suburbs. A family living
together in a city could have a much stronger community and social outlets for
all the family members.

------
maltalex
I highly encourage reading _Sex at Dawn_ [1]. It's an amazing paradigm-shifter
regarding human sexuality.

In a nutshell, it (convincingly, IMHO) argues that the modern story society
tells itself about mating and family is dead wrong, and that we as a species
are wired for communal (or rather tribal) mating. It's a deep rabbithole. It's
also available in audiobook form, if you prefer.

You can get the gist of the argument from wikipedia [1] and a TED talk one of
the authors gave [2].

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_at_Dawn](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_at_Dawn)

[2]
[https://www.ted.com/talks/christopher_ryan_are_we_designed_t...](https://www.ted.com/talks/christopher_ryan_are_we_designed_to_be_sexual_omnivores)

~~~
peterwwillis
This is weak theoretical propaganda pushed by biased amateurs. It's about as
accurate as a Greek myth.

From a purely anecdotal perspective (which is pretty much what that book is),
if you actually take a random sampling of regular humans in pretty much any
developed society, they are woefully unequipped to handle non-monogamy, even
when they are both in favor of it. It is very difficult to find partners who
do not exhibit some form of negative emotions when their partners seek out
other partners. These outcomes happen even when both partners are trying hard
not to hurt each others' feelings.

It's certainly possible that the growth of agricultural societies changed the
dynamics of sexual relationships, but it's doubtful that in 10,000 years our
brains were rewired to find any alternative model to be emotionally
reprehensible. Even if this were the case, though, it may take another 10,000
years to outgrow these emotional bonds, making non-monogamy akin to emotional
masochism!

Regardless of what you think of the book or its theories, none of it will
change how humans relate today. It's more important to understand how current
societal trends developed in recent history through the use of pressure from
social groups (using factors like religion, environment, or government) to
suppress alternative lifestyle choices.

~~~
kasperni
> This is weak theoretical propaganda pushed by biased amateurs. It's about as
> accurate as a Greek myth.

Yes unlike the mythical, one man, one women and a lifetime of marital bliss
pattern pushed by the bible and mainstream media.

If monogamy is so damn natural, why are so many people having such a hard time
with it?

~~~
peterwwillis
Well there's two fallacies there: one, natural things are supposed to be easy,
and two, non-monogamy is supposed to be easy. Neither are true.

------
ravenstine
We're all miserable, not because of any one aspect of modern life, but because
ancient cynicism has a lot of merit.

------
desireco42
I remember coming to US, Chicago specifically, less then 15 yrs ago, coming to
suburbs and discovering weird silence and lack of people. It freaked me out so
much that I am still in the city /w my wife and 3 kids. Suburbs are weird and
can make you crazy.

I don't want to comment on other parts of the post, as I just don't share same
concerns.

------
wayanon
Loneliness is a choice.

------
dmritard96
we are all miserable? This premise seems a bit loaded.

------
peg_leg
No. When I was a kid people went outside. Same cookie cutter homes, but people
outside.

It's the Internet.

~~~
tqkxzugoaupvwqr
You not feeling lonely as a child doesn’t mean parents raising their children
didn’t feel lonely.

~~~
nsxwolf
I never, ever talk to my neighbors and that's what makes me happy. I wonder if
they could figure out what gene I have that's responsible for that and then
sell it as a CRISPR modification.

------
baursak
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headline...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines)

------
mindcrash
"it’s the loneliness and isolation of the nuclear family in the modern world
that is making us miserable."

No, it's hyperconnectivity ("'social' media) and completely unrealistic
expectations about one another that is making us miserable.

I quit using Twitter on a day-to-day basis around Trump's election. Best thing
I have done for my personal health in the last five years or so.

------
eighthnate
I'd say the reason why we are miserable is because of the media and the
increased consumption of rubbish clickbait from the media. We are miserable
because useless journalists have to write something everyday to generate
controversy, fear, anxiety, etc in order to get people to click on their links
so they can sell their ads.

------
Naritai
Betteridge's Law: Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by
the word "No".

