I strongly disagree with this sentence:
- "the "nuclear family" as a mainstream model only ever existed in the minds of conservative Americans, trying to frame a world where their ideals were the norm."
It was absolutely the norm where I grew up (in a suburb.) I don't disagree with the idea that it was a passing phase in the organization of human society, just the "only ever existed in the minds" part. Any editor wish to defend that sentence? Ithaca8 (talk) 22:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
- It wasn't the norm for the overwhelming majority of societies for the overwhelming majority of history. It was the norm for a small section of society for a small section of time. Most people were born into extended families, parents who died/remarried, polygyny, societies that didn't know who the father was, single parents, etc. The idea that the family was composed entirely of a father, mother, and children is a relatively recent one. CorruptUser (talk) 20:18, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- Also, the feasibility of working dad/stay-at-home-mom in the 1950s-60s' America was a product of the unique economic situation of the post-WWII US economic boom and helped along by such modern US conservative bugbears as relatively high unionisation rates and the benefits these provided in terms of one provider earning a salary big enough to feed an entire family. The main reason for the downfall of the Leave it to Beaver-family is that few jobs pay well enough to allow for a working dad to provide for both stay-at-home-mom, their adorable munchkins (and their college funds), a mortgage, at least one car, and whatever other amenities are considered to be central to the fabled US middle class lifestyle. In fact, current US conservatives' infatuation with low or no minimum wages and "austerity" is probably helping to ensure a further decline of the nuclear family. ScepticWombat (talk) 10:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)