> The idea is so manifestly ridiculous that I suspect those who think it is true, want it to be true. It seems like a far fetched idea, but it's very much not.

> The idea is so manifestly ridiculous that I suspect those who think it is true, want it to be true. It seems like a far fetched idea, but it's very much not. There's a large and popular trend today that "it takes a village" to raise a child. Much of the anti-racism propaganda from 2020 highlighted that the nuclear family was part of "white privilege", or "white culture". You can still find the Smithsonian's infographic, or watch the "$100 foot race" that makes these points. It's such a tangled mess of nonsense that it's difficult to unweave -- but the premises is that children don't actually need a nuclear family, but American society has artificially created a need for it. It is perfectly sufficient for children to be raised by many different people in their lives. However, they argue that American society has been specifically structured to make that difficult, or impossible, with the specific intention of putting the underprivileged at a disadvantage, to somehow maintain privilege for the upper class. Saying that the nuclear family was designed to oppress families without a father is like saying gravity was designed by thin people to oppress fat people. The fact of the matter is that children need parents -- but don't think that opposition to this idea is far fetched. It's quite a prevalent idea, they just do a very nice job of making it sound sophisticated and intelligent.