A Perfectly Logical Family System

Post Reply New Topic

I am currently weighing the pros and contras of a family run on explicit rules and regulations. Each person's place in the family structure is well defined; equality in justice is assumed. Mothers and fathers will be referred to as the female superego instiller and the male superego instiller respectively—or preferably by their names. None of this Mom and Dad stuff. A familiar constitution will be drafted and voted upon by all those who meet voting requirements. Creativity and original thinking will be encouraged during specific "Brainstorming Periods" set at regular intervals throughout the week. During such times, family members will present and discuss an original idea, which the rest will debate.

I can only see this as being a good thing. I know most NT women won't be up for such a thing, but does anyone here think this is a good plan?

sure why not, it must be better than letting the parents decide everytihng...

Understood, sir.

Why not just stick with mum and dad? It is quite possible to call your parents titles of respect and endearment and follow their guidelines without them abusing their position of power. Besides, they are adults: someone has to take responsibility for teaching children! For the most part, I think that parents do listen to the input of their children, but ultimately the onus falls on them to keep some semblance of order...

I can pictue it now, an infant saying his or her first word:

"Femmawwe supahehgo intillah!"

"HE/SHE SAID MY NAME FIRST OH MY GOD!! !"

Children, for the most part, should not be allowed to make the decisions.

HOWEVER, there input should always be requested, listened to, and taken into serious and ample consideration since most decisions will undoubtedly affect them as well.

From Anthony Giddens' Reith Lecture, 1999 >>

Family

A good relationship is a relationship of equals, where each party has equal rights and obligations. In such a relationship, each person has respect, and wants the best, for the other. The pure relationship is based upon communication, so that understanding the other person's point of view is essential.

Talk, or dialogue, are the basis of making the relationship work. Relationships function best if people don't hide too much from each other - there has to be mutual trust. And trust has to be worked at, it can't just be taken for granted....

This holds as much in parent-child relations as in other areas. These can't, and shouldn't, be materially equal. Parents must have authority over children, in everyone's interests. Yet they should presume an in-principle equality. In a democratic family, the authority of parents should be based upon an implicit contract. The parent in effect says to the child: 'If you were an adult, and knew what I know, you would agree that what I ask you to do is legitimate'.

Children in traditional families were - and are - supposed to be seen and not heard. Many parents, perhaps despairing of their children's rebelliousness, would dearly like to resurrect that rule. But there isn't any going back to it, nor should there be. In a democracy of the emotions, children can and should be able to answer back.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static ... /week4.htm

I've often wondered if there are fewer problems in American families that come from backgrounds with a stong patriarchal structure, Such as the Asians or American Indians.

I don't think so. I think families with more active fathers are more likely to have problems. I don't know why, but that is just my opinion.