October 31st, 2009 at 09:55pm
New Right And The Family - Comments
-
-
This is a pretty good article. Well written, objective enough, and has a nice personal touch.October 31st, 2009 at 12:19am
-
I agree with you in general. There are a couple of things you said that irked me, some phrases or words you used that I disagreed with, but I think you have the right idea.
The article had good flow to it, good information, and a nice, [i]small[/i] personal touch. Good job.October 30th, 2009 at 11:46pm -
[b]"New Right says that these Laws and Acts took women away from their natural roles, e.g. housewife and mother."[/b]
I don't know if "natural" was your word or their word, but it kind of makes me squirm. I don't think the housewife role is necessarily 'natural' for women, I feel it's more of a societal thing. Women aren't born housewives. They become them because of choice, or how they were socialised, or because they think it's expected of them, etc. etc. It's not exactly a "natural" role.
[b]New Right familial ideology:
"- Is patriarchal - the family is male dominant. Feminists argue that this is negative for women"[/b]
It [i]is[/i] negative for women, full stop. In fact, it's just plain negative as far as I'm concerned. It's just perpetuating the annoying idea a family has to involve a male dominant head, when plenty of families can function without that male dominance.
[b]"Lone-Parent Family Advantages:
The parent works harder to provide for his/her children"[/b]
Not really always the case. Some single parents don't work at all, and on the contrary some duel-income parents work incredibly hard.
In general though, I agree with you that nuclear families are not the best type of family. There are a lot of different types, and they can all work.October 30th, 2009 at 04:19am -
Love the article, however, something irked me about it:
[i]So, I shall list the other family types, and try to outline positives and negatives (if any) of them.[/i]
The word "I" suddenly showed up! There's nothing wrong with using "I" in an article, but you may want to have made that clear in the first paragraphs. It's a bit of a switch and will make people go "WHAAAT???!" Okay, that's probably over-reacting, but I did. Otherwise, it's a great article. Very well-organised. :]
Yeah, these New Right guys seem like a bunch of... Well, you know what I mean. One point I thought was interesting was that kids will be bullied for having two moms or two dads. I agree completely, but kids are always bullied. A kid is going to be bullied for being fat, skinny, having red hair, having two moms, having freckles, having buck teeth, haivng two dads, etcetera. Bullying is never a reason against why homosexual couples can't adopt. Telling homosexual couples they can't adopt is bullying.October 30th, 2009 at 01:29am -
Hmm. I agree to an extent with what you're saying, but I do think that families could try slightly harder to BE a family, if you see what I mean. With divorce being so easy nowadays, some people are just splitting up as soon as they have a problem, which isn't fair to the children at all.
I often find myself discriminated against for having two married parents :/October 29th, 2009 at 09:19pm -
Thank god someone finally said it.
What the hell is wrong with single parent families.
Allthough I do find, "don't bother to work" & "scrounge off the government" a little offensive. My parent worked for 15 years before it strained too hard.
My nana brought me up till I was eight because my parent worked very long hours to provide what meagre funds she could to get by.
Plus I hate it when people say, 'i never had my father around' for an excuse. Bull is what that is.
I think your definitely right, people need to stop judging people based on their family.October 29th, 2009 at 10:59am
One thing when you write an opinion article (I'm assuming, by the way you write, this is an opinion), or really, any type of writing, adding things like "in my opinion", "these are my views", "I think" -- it's a passive tendency and is redundant, deserving of a "duh" (unless something is strictly impartial and factual which yours is not). Also, keep in mind that your experience does not equal those of alternative families as a whole. You cannot say "we don't do this" because you and the people you know are not a representative sample of the population.
However, I feel like I'm reading a biased wikipedia entry as opposed to an article. You make accusations such as "Sometimes, nuclear families are really bad to be part of [...] a lot of the time, they [nuclear families] are unequal, as the man has the instrumental role of the breadwinner..." without providing any type of fact to support your claims. While you list advantages and disadvantages of other types of families, you fail to offer that same luxury to the nuclear family itself; this mixed with how you accuse nuclear families of abuse and oppression (because those things only occur in traditional families, right?) is in direct conflict with the idea you propose: The New Right idea of one family being superior is wrong and unjust. And yet, you say while all these horrible things are happening in traditional families, you'll "try" to outline positives as well as the negatives (if they exist) which implies they are less likely to exist than in traditional families -- wrong. If it is right, where's the evidence to support it? Once again, your personal experience isn't indicative as fact for everyone -- majority or minority.