Are we making the family too special for our own good?
1 of 6
https://www.mercatornet.com/features/view/are-we-making-the-family-t...
Two women philosophers think so, despite evidence to the
contrary.
Carolyn Moynihan | May 19 2017 |
12
The family has had a privileged place in civilisation,
with laws to protect it (governing marriage, for
example) and, in modern societies, often policies to
support it financially (tax breaks or child benefits).
Why? Because the family is the little community in
which children are born and nurtured and prepared
for citizenship – with the help of other institutions.
It is a law of nature that the adults of a species look
5/21/17, 10:57 PM
Are we making the family too special for our own good?
2 of 6
https://www.mercatornet.com/features/view/are-we-making-the-family-t...
after their own young, and most human societies
want them to do it well, not only for the sake of the
individuals concerned, but because it is better for
society at large.
Does that mean that the nuclear family is
sacrosanct? That it is beyond criticism or change?
That it must be kept together at all costs, even the
safety of its weaker members? Or that people in
other family structures do not deserve the
protection and support of the state?
Of course not. And yet there are people today who
see the family consisting of a married man and
woman with the children they generate, rational
and generally successful though it is, as an ideal
that threatens equality and diversity in the
domestic sphere.
Among them are two Scandinavian philosophers
writing in the Nordic Journal of Applied Ethics this
month. They examine the “special status” accorded
the nuclear family and find that it is not consistent
with “contemporary Western values” relating to
women and children.
This alleged power of the nuclear family model is
surprising. Divorce, cohabitation, sole parenthood
and same-sex marriage have produced a family
landscape that reflects quite well the way we value
women and children now, one would have thought.
We are constantly told that “families come in many
forms” and this “diversity” is celebrated at the
highest levels.
Daniela Cutas and Anna Smajdor, however, are
concerned with the remaining influence of the
nuclear family as a social norm, “the family” as
opposed to simply “families”. They say this
structure is treated as though it has a “moral
status” or value over and above that of its
5/21/17, 10:57 PM
Are we making the family too special for our own good?
3 of 6
https://www.mercatornet.com/features/view/are-we-making-the-family-t...
individual members, and even in conflict with their
individual moral status and interests.
Practically speaking, this means that the traditional
idea of the family still shapes laws and policies in
ways that are harmful to some individuals,
especially women and children. For this reason the
family may need to lose its special status, the
philosophers argue.
But is it true that the nuclear family (still) has a
status that obliges governments to protect it? And
even if it does, how harmful is this to individual
members compared with other domestic
arrangements that are already approved or
tolerated and supported socially, or yet others that
might be, in a total free for all?
Certainly, the nuclear family is the model taken for
granted in international law. Article 16 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that
“Men and women of full age … have the right to
marry and to found a family. They are entitled to
equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at
its dissolution.” The same article states: “The family
is the natural and fundamental group unit of society
and is entitled to protection by society and the
State.”
Cutas and Smajdor note the appeal to “naturalness”
that underpins the UN definition and the belief that
this natural family structure will be better for its
members, especially children – assumptions
shaping laws about the family throughout the West.
They see various harms in this.
Fertility treatment is geared to health of the
(nuclear) family unit not individuals. Infertility
is officially defined in terms of failure to conceive
after a period of regular sexual intercourse. This
limits access to “treatments” such as IVF and
5/21/17, 10:57 PM
Are we making the family too special for our own good?
4 of 6
https://www.mercatornet.com/features/view/are-we-making-the-family-t...
surrogacy for same-sex couples and single women
in some countries (Turkey, Italy and India, for
example), although others, such as Sweden and the
UK have loosened their criteria. The UK, the authors
note approvingly, no longer requires that “a child’s
need for a father” be considered, but only “need of
that child for supportive parenting”.
Nevertheless they complain that,
“Biological malfunctions, such as blocked
fallopian tubes and azoospermia, are irrelevant
here. Rather, it is the deficit in the family (lack of
offspring) that is addressed by medical
treatment. Infertility is the failure to achieve the
nuclear family through sexual intercourse,
independently of any associated biological or
medical problem.”
How relevant, though, are blocked fallopian tubes
or azoospermia to someone who is not trying to
procreate? How would they even know they had
such a condition? Surely it is fair to offer fertility
treatments to those who have a known and
immediate need.
The family bias ignores evidence that family
form is not what determines the best
environment for children.
“Empirical research suggests that what matters
most for children’s well-being is the quality of
relationships within the family and the support
that the family receives, rather than family form,
whether it is nuclear, whether the parents are
married to each other, or the number of
parents.”
5/21/17, 10:57 PM
Are we making the family too special for our own good?
5 of 6
https://www.mercatornet.com/features/view/are-we-making-the-family-t...
Yet there is also evidence that unmarried parents
are more likely to split up than the married by the
time a child is 12, thus contributing to instability
(including future unions and separations) in children
lives, and this instability is even more likely for the
children of single mothers, along with the risks of
child abuse by the mother as well as her partner/s.
Is it better to impose these risks on children than to
gear social efforts towards keeping their parents
together?
The drive to preserve the nuclear family puts
women at risk. The authors cite reports of policies
that “often showed greater concern for the
maintenance of a two-parent family than for the
safety of the mother and her children.” Contact (by
the separated father) with children was allowed
even where there were “convictions or explicit
reports of child abuse or domestic violence.” The
vulnerability of women to violence was treated as a
marginal issue.
Frankly, this does not sound like the way family
agencies act in most Western countries today. But
in any case, US data shows that children of
divorced and never-married parents are far more
likely to have been exposed to domestic violence
than children in married two-parent families.
It is obvious, however, that the authors are
convinced the nuclear or traditional family has been
oppressive for women and children for most of
history and that it continues to be so for many
today. This is because its privileged status and
protection by authorities means “the family falls
under the authority of their most powerful
members” – in other words, the patriarchal male.
Historically, women and children were not regarded
as having full moral status, but this has changed:
women and children are now seen as equal.
5/21/17, 10:57 PM
Are we making the family too special for our own good?
6 of 6
https://www.mercatornet.com/features/view/are-we-making-the-family-t...
However, that change will not yield all its benefits
for them as long as society enshrines “the (nuclear)
family” as an ideal and norm.
So the philosophers reason, despite the fact that
they both work in countries (Sweden and Norway)
where more than 50 percent of children are already
born to unmarried (cohabiting or single) mothers,
and which rank highly for gender equality.
Is it safer for women in Sweden now? Apparently
not. In Norway intimate partner violence is above
the EU average. A Spanish-Swedish team of
researchers last year called this mismatch between
the high status of women and high rates of IPV “the
Nordic paradox” – a subject on which they found a
surprising lack of research. The decline of marriage
hasn’t done much for the mental health of young
Scandinavians either.
Such indicators suggest that the real problem with
the nuclear family today is not that it is valued too
much but that it is valued too little, and that the
concerns of Cutas and Smajdor are more theoretical
than real.
Politicians don't take much notice of theories, but
their policy advisors do. It is to be hoped that
the prejudice against “the family” evident in the
paper discussed here does not contribute to a
further decline in social support for the little
communities that both nature and experience point
to as the conditions for personal wellbeing and the
foundation of a healthy society.
Carolyn Moynihan is deputy editor of MercatorNet.
5/21/17, 10:57 PM
Polyamory: Beyond the confines of monogamous love
Monogamy is still very much the norm in today’s societies, but different types of romantic relationships
are gaining ground. For this Spotlight feature, we have spoken to some polyamorous people and asked:
What is fact and what is fiction about polyamorous relationships?
What is polyamory, really? In this Spotlight feature, we investigate.
Written by Maria Cohut, Ph.D. on July 26, 2019 — Fact checked by Gianna D'Emilio
Medical News Today
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/325880#Jealousy-and-time-management
In most societies around the world, people dream of finding “the one” and forming a committed
relationship with that one person — for life.
Movies and books are filled with “happily ever after” stories involving soulmates that were
simply “made for each other.”
Yet, over the past few decades, more and more people have been speaking out, saying that
monogamy is not for them.
According to recent studies, approximately 4–5% of all adults in the United States have
consensual nonmonogamous relationships.
One form of nonmonogamous practice that has been attracting attention in the media is
polyamory. But what is polyamory, really, and how does it differ from other nonmonogamous
practices?
Is it a dream come true, a way of “having your cake and eating it, too,” as the saying goes? Or, is
being in a polyamorous relationship really not that different from being in any other kind of
relationship?
For this Spotlight feature, we have spoken to four polyamorous people, asking them about
polyamory facts and misconceptions and about how this lifestyle works for them.
‘The hardest question’
When speaking to polyamorous people about how they would define polyamory, the same
reaction came up over and over again.
“It’s probably the hardest [question] to answer,” one interviewee, Ella, said. Another,
Sebastian, exclaimed, “quite a hard question, to be honest!”
The difficulty comes from the fact that polyamorous relationships can take various forms. They
can be hierarchical, with one partner being the “primary” partner, or nonhierarchical, in which all
partners have equal standing.
Moreover, a person could be in separate relationships with different partners or in a relationship
in which all or several partners are also romantically engaged with each other.
Yet, there is usually a common theme, when it comes to defining the notion of polyamory.
Christian Klesse, Ph.D., a researcher and lecturer at Manchester Metropolitan University, in the
United Kingdom, specializes in sexualities. Klesse explains this conundrum in a paper that
features in the journal Sexualities.
“Polyamory it is a contested term. Its concrete meanings have been an issue of ongoing
debate,” Klesse writes. However, he continues, “Love is central to the discourses on
polyamory, [which] is clearly revealed in an analysis of the etymological roots of the term.”
Indeed, the word “polyamory” comes from the Greek root “poly,” meaning “many,” and the
Latin root “amor,” meaning “love.” Quite literally, it means “many loves” — being romantically
involved with multiple people at the same time.
Despite noting how hard it was to define polyamory, this was actually what all the polyamorous
people who spoke with us said: Polyamory is about spreading the love.
“It’s a lifestyle where, essentially, I am not confined to the things that everyone else is confined
[to] in relationships. The way that I see it […] is that you have multiple loving relationships with
multiple people at the same time,” said Ella.
“For me, it’s about doing stuff that I think a lot of people want to do anyway, but it’s a kind of
honest and ethical way of doing so,” Mary told us. At the moment, she said, she happens to only
have one partner. But the framework of a polyamorous relationship would allow her to also
become involved with other people:
“Even though I do only have the one partner at the moment, I could have others, and that
wouldn’t be a sign that there’s anything wrong with me. It would just be an opportunity to
increase the amount of love and pleasure that you get in life.”
It’s not (just) about the sex
The polyamorous people who spoke with us also agreed on another issue: the main
misconception that non-polyamorous individuals tend to have about this practice.
“Many people mistake polyamorous relationships for open relationships,” Jim told us. So what’s
the difference between the two, really?
He explained: “An open relationship allows its partners to pursue nonserious sexual and
romantic relationships with people outside the relationship. However, open relationships
share with monogamous relationships the obligation to not pursue any serious romantic
relationships with other people.”
By contrast, polyamorous people often — though not always — start seeing different people
with a view of pursuing a meaningful romantic relationship with them. Sex can be part of the
deal, but it is not usually the focus.
“People don’t really understand what [polyamory] means. […] A lot of people call it an ‘open
relationship.’ A lot of people think that it’s just a [single] one-on-one emotional relationship with
an open sexual element, which isn’t really true for [my polyamorous relationship] — that’s not
how we do it,” Sebastian told us.
Another common misconception is that polyamory is a creative form of cheating on a stable
partner. Mary, who is in a relationship with a person who already had a romantic partner when
he started seeing her, told us that she often encounters this stereotype.
“Sometimes I’ll chat to people about [polyamory, and] even people I’m quite close to […] they’ll
make little jokes like, ‘Oh, no wonder [your polyamorous partner] is having an affair.’ And it’s
like… no, that’s not really it,” she told us.
“No one is cheating,” Ella also said, when pointing out common misconceptions that she
encounters about polyamory. “The idea is that we’re all open and honest and that we follow a
moral code that [we agreed on within our relationship].”
‘The last person I would expect to do that’
Are all people “secretly” polyamorous, but just unwilling to admit that this is how they would
prefer to lead their romantic lives? Mary thought not. She said, “Some people, I think, can get
quite evangelical about [polyamory] and say, ‘Oh, everybody’s [polyamorous],’ and I think
that’s not the case at all.”
And yet, what kind of a person do you have to be in order to practice polyamory? And how do
you get into it?
Some of the individuals who spoke to Medical News Today said that they had known for years
that their natural inclination was to be in love with several people at once.
“I actually realized [I was polyamorous] very, very early on — I was 13, 14. But I didn’t have a
framework […] or a concept for it until I was 21,” Ella told us. Mary, too, said that she had been
interested in polyamory for years before she entered into her first polyamorous relationship.
But others said that they had never considered that polyamory was an option for them until they
just… accidentally fell into it.
“Although I know that some people get something of a ‘eureka moment’ when they discover
polyamory for themselves, that hasn’t been the case with me. I’m not sure why I’m polyamorous.
It’s probably because many of my close friends are, which made me curious about it,” Jim told
MNT.
Something similar happened to Sebastian, who explained: “I met someone who was already
involved with that [scene] […] so I kind of fell into the scene, really. As I started to do it, I
realized it was completely normal to me, [and that] it felt quite natural.”
He also noted that this came as a complete surprise to his friends, who had perceived him as
being quite a conventional person:
“My best friend [was] quite surprised. I think his exact words were: ‘Sebastian, you’re the last
person I would expect to do that!'”
Jealousy and time management
Although people who practice polyamory may not have any magical superpowers, sometimes it
may seem as if they do. Healthy polyamorous relationships are based on good time management
skills and great communication, according to the people who spoke to MNT.
Polyamory can involve a lot of tight scheduling, and this can be a challenge.
For one, the partners in a polyamorous relationship have to be great at explaining what their
expectations, needs, and limits are and at checking in emotionally with their partners at every
step of the way.
Different types of polyamorous relationships, therefore, come with different sets of rules,
depending on the needs of the romantic partners.
Ella also noted that, early on in her life as a polyamorous partner, she had to learn to fully
understand where any negative emotions, such as jealousy, might come from.
By doing so, she said, she came to understand that not all negative emotions were, in their
essence, related to aspects of her relationship. Moreover, this allowed her to find better coping
strategies for such emotions.
“I’ve had to face anxiety and jealousy and whatever difficult feelings that might come with
[knowing that my partner is on a date with someone else],” Ella told us.
“I’ve experienced the fact that [my primary partner] has dated and has seen people, and I’ve had
to confront the fact that I was home on my own while my boyfriend is out there seeing someone
who they may or may not end up having sex with that night, ” she continued.
Ella explained that she worked to understand what she was feeling in the moment and why she
was feeling that way. She acknowledged:
“I am someone who doesn’t like to be alone […] and I was noticing that that was the thing that I
was getting stressed out about the most. [I realized] that this is not, in fact, related to polyamory.
It’s not the fact that he’s seeing someone, it’s just the fact that I’m alone right now, and that’s
something that I can fix.”
Indeed, the issue of jealousy seemed to come up time and again for other polyamorous people,
too. Mary told us that she had experienced jealousy when thinking about her partner being with
someone else and that this is an emotion that she still sometimes reckons with.
Sebastian, instead, told us that jealousy has not really been an issue for him because his partner is
great at continually showing him that she cares about him and his feelings.
As for time management, both Ella and Mary agreed that this can be one of the most
challenging aspects of maintaining polyamorous relationships.
Ella, in particular, noted that this could sometimes be a source of worry. Currently, she is in two
separate relationships with two different polyamorous men, but her relationships are hierarchical:
She has a primary and a secondary partner, which means, among other things, that she dedicates
a set — and distinct — amount of time to each.
While she said that this has worked well for them so far, she explained that she could well
imagine a situation in which time might become even more difficult to negotiate.
“The thing that I’ve found more challenging is if I’ve reached my quota [of time with my
secondary partner] and my secondary partner is having a difficult time for some reason […] like,
imagine [that one of his family members has] died, then that’s something that I would like to be
there for him, for a prolonged period of time,” Ella told us.
And, she continued: “What if that happens? Am I going to have to neglect [my primary partner]
for like a week or two?”
Despite these challenges, there seems to be an overarching sentiment that polyamory is worth the
effort, purely for the amount of love and support that goes around among the partners.
“I’m living my best life,” Ella told us.
Disclaimer: We have changed the names of all the interviewees featured in this article to protect
their identities.
Grading Rubric for Forum Discussions
Write a solid paragraph of about 250 words for your post. Your post must demonstrate critical
thinking about families pondering materials and information from that week.
Think about how you can contribute some substantive arguments to the discussion that goes beyond
what has been already said and stated in the class materials - contextualizing and critically evaluating
the issues. Consider questions like: Why are we seeing particular patterns? What could be
contributing to the issues beyond the information presented in the readings and videos? What are the
consequences of the observed patterns/phenomena? What does it mean for particular forms or
groups of families? What does this mean for certain groups in our society? Can something be done
about this - could policies or programs improve the issues? What did the authors (readings, videos)
fail to consider? Etc.,
Questions like these demonstrate critical thinking and will most definitively add substance to your
posts.
Your post should be clear and well thought out.
You can use examples from your personal experience to illustrate your thoughts but do not just
recount things you heard or experienced, rather apply those experiences to make your arguments.
Responses must also be substantive. Please do not just repeat what someone else stated, just cheer
on your fellow students, or just add a personal anecdote. Do all of the above if you wish but add some
substantive arguments to gain maximum points.
Points
1.
2.
Forum post. Thoughts about materials of the week
- Post is substantive, informed, and critical
4 Points
- Post is well thought out and clear
2 Points
Respond with a substantive statement to two students in class
Total possible points
4 Points
10 Points
Purchase answer to see full
attachment