SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The most common reasons given for the breakdown of marriages or live-in partnerships in Britain are communication problems and growing apart, according to analysis by UCL researchers of the latest National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles (Natsal-3).
[...] Natsal is the largest scientific study of sexual health lifestyles in Britain. It is carried out by UCL, the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine and NatCen Social Research [sic]
Natsal is run every 10 years, and includes a representative sample of men and women resident in Britain aged between 16 and 74. Natsal-3 was carried out between 2010 and 2012.
The study focused on the responses of 706 men and 1254 women to questions about their reasons for breakdown of a marriage or cohabiting relationship in the past 5 years.
[UCL is, of course, University College London. It has as part of one of its faculties the above-mentioned school.]
I would have guessed footie.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Grishnakh on Tuesday March 28 2017, @03:05PM (6 children)
Wrong. Pre-industrial societies (and even most post-industrial societies, until the advent of today's idiotic "nuclear family") had children raised not by two parents, but by a sizeable group: either an entire extended family clan (consisting of grandparents, several of their kids and those kids' spouses, etc.), or a whole village. In pre-contact Hawai'i, they didn't have marriage at all, and didn't even know who kids' fathers were, nor did they care. The kids were raised collectively by their village. Now you could make a case that in all these instances, there were usually both men and women involved in raising the kids, and that's correct, just not necessarily their biological parents. Kids don't need a singular man and woman (and their bio-parents at that) to raise them, they need multiple different people, and really the more the better (up to a point). Honestly, I think many of today's problems come from society turning to nuclear families, and not having enough people involved in a child's upbringing.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 28 2017, @03:34PM
I think this is considered fake anthropology these days.
Everybody knows that the nuclear family has been how things are done for the past 4 million some odd years, right up until millennials invented gay. Also we've been at war with Eastasia far into the future, thousands of years ago according to my alternate fossil record.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday March 28 2017, @05:39PM (4 children)
Isolated exceptions do not disprove rules of a general nature. Logic fail. And I was not arguing for an only-existed-on-TV nuclear family consisting of only the biological parents and the children, so there goes that. Did you have any other arguments you wanted to make?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Tuesday March 28 2017, @06:44PM (3 children)
Are you stupid? I just disproved your central thesis. People did not live in nuclear families before ~1950s, period.
(Score: 2) by lgw on Wednesday March 29 2017, @12:39AM (1 child)
You do know that "nuclear families" are not radioactive, right?
The term refers to the committed parents and their kids as the nucleus of the family. It's a very common pattern through history for kids to be raised by the extended family, or small group of a few families ("village" is too big a thing, I think), but kids having specific people they know as Father and Mother is found throughout written history.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday March 29 2017, @03:37PM
No, that's not what the term means in practice at all; it means a family stripped down to its nucleus: the parents and kids only, no extended relatives at all (at least not actively involved in raising the kids on a day-to-day basis). It's an entirely modern phenomenon. Before that, at least in western societies, kids were raised by extended families or groups or villages.
And no, having specific people they know as "Father" and "Mother" is not found *universally* throughout history, though it definitely is the norm for places with written history I'll admit. Many more primitive cultures, such as pre-contact Hawai'i, did not have this.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday March 29 2017, @09:24AM
You disproved nothing. All you did was deliberately misunderstand in order to create a strawman.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.