It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Family Unit - has it screwed up the world?

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 10:26 PM
link   
This is more a conversation that I would like to have, rather than a pure statement that the Individual Family Unit has really messed the world up.

My contention is that our family units provide Isolation, and rather than protection, they provide the exact opposite, the lack of protection. I believe that things would be better off if we lived in a "tribe" atmosphere.


----------------------------------------------------------------------

For my argument, let me describe Human-kind as if we are a pack of animals.

How does the pack work in nature?

There is a defined caste structure, with alpha males and females, and other animals filling the ranks.

The young are constantly surrounded by family and relatives that can look after them.

As the young mature, interest has already been building with other wolves in the pack.

If a wolf is interested who the parent doesn't agree with, the family can fight the wolf off.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, lets look at how the wolves would work in a family system:

Your family is a pack of wolves. Your pack sits in its own cave and raises its family.

Since the pack is segregated, your young has less interaction with other packs, so they have less role models and less good examples set for them.

When your daughter wolf becomes of mating age, she's forced to leave the cave, and therefore steps into the unprotected wild, where the first wolf who walks up on her can take advantage of her, and she probably won't know any better.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My analogy is a little loose, but to me it makes sense......

Our daughters and sons are gone from our family for most of the day, starting when they turn 5.

Who is there to look after them? We give full responsibility to people who are not their family, we put our full trust in people who have little stake in our child's lives.

I think that our young women do not have enough healthy interaction with males around their family. How is the family supposed to look after them, if they never know anything about their child's relationship.

Look at the internet, a young girl steps onto that, and men are like rabid wolves waiting pray on her subtle flesh.

How many opportunities do our children have to see healthy human relationships if they are unlucky enough to not have that at home.



---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How did Native American families deal with marital relations in front of their children?

I assume that since one family shared a teepee, that the young would see their parents copulate a few feet from them. This would allow them to see what a healthy relationship is, and give them a good example.



What examples do kids get of sex in our current society?
Most sex on the internet and TV is excessively lude, and lacks the delicate loving process that it should entail.

We shelter our children from the subjects that are "touchy" or "sensitive", especially sex. But, children will eventually learn about sex, whether its from a video or a magazine or from friends.



Shouldn't the family desire to give their children the most morale and complete understanding of all the details of his life that a child will need to grow up?

Instead of details, we give them a list of taboo things, that we just don't feel comfortable talking to them about.


So, would society be better if we were still in a tribal system?

I know for a fact, we'd have alot less young women raped.....




posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 10:45 PM
link   
not sure if i agree with you there on most things because there are a LOT more things to take into consideration there. But on the last section there I do kind of agree with, basically not really just familys being bad but just how familes are RAISING their kids now days. Also way way back in the day but very little today (i know this isn't exactly on target of what you were talking about) neighborhoods were a LITTLE bit packish i guess lol if you really think about it, you know like neighbors helped each other out had get togethers and lived close together.



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 10:50 PM
link   
No, you hit it on the nail ..... We are very individual people now, very rarely do we even see ourselves as part of a larger whole. Very rarely do we look after others as we look after our own children.

I started thinking about this one day, because I have two adorable kitties, one is a one-eyed boy cat, and the other is a cute girl cat. And I know, if I let my girl kitty outside, she'll be at the mercy of the first male cat to walk up on her. Well, isn't this the same as many of our daughters?

We let them start going to the mall, and they can fall prey to the first guy to start hitting on them. This is the first real attention they have gotten, so they don't know any better.



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 10:58 PM
link   
reply to post by ThreeDeuce
 


Direction in family units has been deteriorating over time and it's quite possibly deliberate as it is easier to take advantage of singled out and indoctrinated people than it is in a cohesive family unit. From what I can tell, up to about 300 years ago, extended families lived together or very close as in the houses next door. One's progeny could then learn from a series of very close extended family. When the industrial revolution kicked in, things changed somewhat, people relocated to find work and hence extended families were in many cases left behind and only seen on occasions. Two additional mutations seemed to have occurred in the 50's and 60's, the decades of rebellion and free love followed by the loss of religion in the 70's. The most recent mutation which started in the 80's I think would be the religion of political correctness, the family doesn't matter time, which seems to have reached its peak after the turn of the century.

The whole thing seems steered to me and certainly not a natural progression. Personally, I like the Old Native American ethic when it comes to families. It's very communal, everyone shares work and everyone shares in the benefits. Native Americans 200 years ago were like Europeans 1000 years ago as far as the family unit and extended family seem to operate. But back then it was about what you could do to help the members of your extended family/tribe, not how far you could screw them over.

I think we would be much better off if we maintained the old ethics and morals but coupled them with the new technology. But that wouldn't work well with the bankers, politicians and corporations now, would it? It would be a little too hard play divide and conquer.

Cheers - Dave



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 11:21 PM
link   
reply to post by bobs_uruncle
 

Bob you said that perfectly.
There is an old saying, It takes a village to raise a child. Maybe they were right.

How hard would it be to unite a family /community now and have everyone working living and caring for one another. I’m all for the hippy commune without the drugs and swingers : lol:



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 03:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by bobs_uruncle
reply to post by ThreeDeuce
 


Direction in family units has been deteriorating over time and it's quite possibly deliberate as it is easier to take advantage of singled out and indoctrinated people than it is in a cohesive family unit. From what I can tell, up to about 300 years ago, extended families lived together or very close as in the houses next door. One's progeny could then learn from a series of very close extended family. When the industrial revolution kicked in, things changed somewhat, people relocated to find work and hence extended families were in many cases left behind and only seen on occasions. Two additional mutations seemed to have occurred in the 50's and 60's, the decades of rebellion and free love followed by the loss of religion in the 70's. The most recent mutation which started in the 80's I think would be the religion of political correctness, the family doesn't matter time, which seems to have reached its peak after the turn of the century.

The whole thing seems steered to me and certainly not a natural progression. Personally, I like the Old Native American ethic when it comes to families. It's very communal, everyone shares work and everyone shares in the benefits. Native Americans 200 years ago were like Europeans 1000 years ago as far as the family unit and extended family seem to operate. But back then it was about what you could do to help the members of your extended family/tribe, not how far you could screw them over.

I think we would be much better off if we maintained the old ethics and morals but coupled them with the new technology. But that wouldn't work well with the bankers, politicians and corporations now, would it? It would be a little too hard play divide and conquer.

Cheers - Dave


Um,, not all tribes where the same. Infact many where radically different from each other. P.S 1,000 years ago most Europeans where serfs.

As per family unit causing lifes problems, I think the last 30 or so years can prove that it is not the case. Bad family units cause problems. Lack of a strong family unit causes social disasters.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 06:44 AM
link   
Most of the issues I struggled with as a child came from lack of family. To this day I still crave something I never had, even though its to late, so much so, that I married the wrong man based on his family and the desire to be apart of that. I think family is an instinctual need, and that is why so many children today feel lost. Where is the supportive grandparents? Aunts? Uncles? Cousins?



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 09:48 AM
link   
I personally have both...a family, and a "tribe" of friends (yes, we even call ourselves that..."the tribe")... Most are friends we've had for over a decade, but some have just been for a couple of years. We don't see the tribe as often as we'd like to lately though...we need to.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
We don't see the tribe as often as we'd like to lately though...we need to.


It is a shame that even our closest friends, we have less and less contact with.

How many of your friends do you now only contact by text messages, inconsequential bits on a cell phone screen. With technology, we are getting less and less human interaction, and our families and family-type relationships are suffering.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 09:26 PM
link   
While I think there is some wisdom in your theory I do not think it would prevent rape as male relatives (cousins, uncles ect) can commit incest and having closer living quarters would make that far easier. I' don't know what the rate of rape and incest is like in tribal villages but I suspect the main thing that would motivate people to protect girls from it is their hymen having price tag on it.
edit on 25-1-2011 by riley because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 09:22 AM
link   
reply to post by ThreeDeuce
 


Lately, it's just been a variety of crises that prevent it... There's a lot of drama with my mother in law being in a coma, and some friends are having health issues with their little girl, etc. that are consuming "off-time" that we'd usually use to get together... Often, we'll go to one friend's father's ranch, and do some horseback riding, sit around a fire and BS, etc. together, but has been way too long since we've done that.



new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join