Pro and cons of families

For many liberals the word family is nearly an insult. Indeed this institution goes against the principles of equity, equality and meritocracy. 20th century socialist often tried to destroy it as an institution. As a result in the kibbutz education is collective so the children are raised by the group and not only the parents. Reusing principles often used by religions (from the gospels to Scientology) the "secular religions" of the 20th century (nazism and communism) also often tried to cancel the bond of kindship that was a powerful opponent to the absolute love the individual was meant to have for the cause and the party.
Later feminist assumed family was a institution designed to tie down the female by the double burden of the kids and the husband. The family in Europe was soon confiscated by religious conservative as a political agenda often with the declared aim (as in the Mediterranean dictatorships) to fight sexual freedom and professional carriers both supposed to endanger the religious pillars of these regimes. The communist dictatorships like Romania often had a pro-nativist agenda too.

With the 1990s and the liberations also came a dramatic reduction of the nativity rate in most European countries. Women were sexually free and professionally too, where was the point of making babies? Once you had one where was the point of staying married if the wedlock was becoming too much of a burden? Divorce rate and the percentage of babies born out of the wedlock skyrocketed.

But increasingly pieces of research support the idea that the traditional system was not that bad. Marriage produce economies of scale and more money and time can be invested in the children, as a result long-term couples (and specially married ones) are richer and their children are doing better in school compared to single parents with similar income.
Similarly, thriving countries in western Europe are endangered on the long-term by their lack of population (who is going to pay their retirement?). According to some estimation by 2035 France may be more populated than Germany and it is not impossible that by the second third of this century countries like the UK, France or Poland be more populated than� Russia. The nativity rate as thus a clear impact on everybody's welfare.

Thus pro-family policies appear as essential both for the nations and the individuals. The problem is that you can't force people to have kids. You can help them to grow them (free kindergardens, etc) but these measures have no immediate and automatic effect. Besides, it is out of the question to ban abortion or divorce. Supporting religions as a mean to re-install a pro-family doctrine goes against the traditional secularist European vision. So what should we do.
Maybe follow the example of the US and use and abuse the notion of family values and of the value of family. For European, the obsession about family of all sitcoms and of people like S. Spielberg is beyond understanding and the decision of the new head of the senate to bring with her all her grand-children for her first appearance looked incredibly cheesy. The uproars of the US media against Clinton in the Lewinski affair looked extreemly strange for French people for whom a president would dishonor himself if he didn't have a good reputation as a womenizer. As usual the US way is not very delicate, but as usual they hit the nail right on the head. The point is: Europe could use more family value.

Once happen a time European represented over 20% of the world's total population, they'll soon be little more than 3%, in your opinion what is the best way to re-populate the old continent?

I am pro-family, because the baby needs both a father and a mother.

Families are the atoms of society; the basic support for all the infrastructure. Destroy families and societies wash away.

Originally posted by pinguin In Latin America we suspect that's what going on in North America and Europe, indeed.

I don't exactly see in what way European society is being 'washed away'.

Originally posted by pinguin Originally posted by Mixcoatl The world is full enough already, the government should rather enourage people not to have children. Besides, what are 'family values' anyay? Often is no more than a euphemism for all kinds of homophobic and antifeminist crap. Surprisingly same-sex marriage is often considered 'anti-family' while letting children grow up in poverty is not.   The vision you have is the standard in societies that have already destroyed the families.

That's an ad hominem, not an argument.

Nature that care of that. In the long term, people that preserve family values usually replace those than don't.

Nature is not too fond of overpopulation either.

Originally posted by Mixcoatl The world is full enough already, the government should rather enourage people not to have children. Besides, what are 'family values' anyay? Often is no more than a euphemism for all kinds of homophobic and antifeminist crap. Surprisingly same-sex marriage is often considered 'anti-family' while letting children grow up in poverty is not.

Well said.

Although a country can't run with 70% of the population being retired as is happening in countries like Japan (though not to the extent of 70%). We need children to do our work

but look at the United States, the WASPs are now a small minority (20%?),

I don't really know any American who uses WASP unless it's for racism. Every "white" I know has either Italian, Irish, or Polish or all of those and a myriad of everything and anything else. Alot of Americans even have Native American blood. We mix alot if we match in culture, but I guess thats said everywhere. Maybe our success has to do with integration of everyone and even taking values from everyone? Just a thought.

Originally posted by Mixcoatl The world is full enough already, the government should rather enourage people not to have children.

Nope, before the industrial revolution France was 20 millions inhabitants and the UK had a bit more then 10, now they both have slightly over 60 millions, on the other hand Algeria for instance went from 6 millions in 1960 to 38 now, the speed of growth (and of urbanisation disconnected from the rise of GDP unlike in industrializing Europe) have just nothing to do.

Besides, numerous European countries (Germany, Spain, Italy, almost all Eastern European countries and ex-soviet republics) are actually losing or about to lose parts of their population.