2 ms·
It's the basic social unit part. In society that actually exists, they're not a basic unit. You can obviously find couples and their dependent children, just li
by immibis 2y ago
It's the basic social unit part. In society that actually exists, they're not a basic unit. You can obviously find couples and their dependent children, just like maybe you can find a monad in a Java program, but they're not basic units.
- toasterlovin 2y agoIf nuclear families were not of fundamental importance, you would not see “mother” and “father” universally conserved across all languages as the first words that people learn. This is like the thing with the two fish who don’t know what water is; nuclear families are so pervasively important that you just can’t see it.
- ClumsyPilot 2y agoThis is both a non-sequitor and a confabulation. Kids that don’t grow up with their parents do not learn them as first words. Kids that do grow up with their parents, often still learn something else as their first words. Learning X as your first word does not prove that X is a foundational unit of society, it simply does not follow.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- protocolture 2y agoThis doesnt even seem like you are arguing for nuclear families. I feel like you have conflated the nuclear family (a method of organising the basic social unit of a society) with "The importance of parents". The nuclear family simply isnt the only basic social unit with parents in it. >nuclear families are so pervasively important Parents are very important. The nuclear family does not have a monopoly on parents.