From: jakec@ralvmm.vnet.ibm.com (Jake Coughlin)
Subject: Re: Modern Family Values
Originator: jakec@ralvmm.vnet.ibm.com
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 17:08:56 GMT
Organization: IBM T. J. Watson Research

wagner@bnlux1.bnl.gov (david wagner):
> To help our efforts to reclaim the word "family," I propose that we 
> start using the phrase "Modern Family Values."  This takes the
> loathsome phrase "Traditional Family Values" and twists it around into
> something better.  "Modern" is up-to-date, fresh and applicable to
> today's world.  "Traditional" is out-of-date, stale and irrelevant.

there's just something wrong with this paragraph, and i think it's the
meanings you're assigning to "modern" and "traditional."  while
there's certainly an element of time to each of these words when used
with the phrase "family values," i think the point is more conceptual.

Traditional family values can be tied to the 50s, but the phrase
itself indicates a momma, a poppa, a couple to a few children, where
the poppa is the primary breadwinner and decision maker and the momma
is the "domestic engineer."  we grow up in a neighborhood, playing
broom ball in the street, selling Lemonade, and riding our bikes,
adorned with fenders and reflectors.  the family unit eats together at
a certain time in the dining room, and retreats to the living room to
play checkers, or watch life-affirming television shows.  dad sits in
his easy chair.  mom sits on the couch, knitting, and the children lay
on the floor with their heads in their hands.  dorothy walks down the
yellow brick road, and toto doesn't give her rabies.  the scarecrow
doesn't rape her.  the tin man doesn't axe her to death.  and, the
lion doesn't eat out her liver.  glenda isn't the only one floating in
a bubble.

Modern family values seems to parallel the conceptual model of
Modernism that everything and everyone has essential qualities.  a
family isn't defined by the momma, poppa, children model.  it's
centered by the love, caring, and nurturing that close relationships
are supposed to provide.  the momma and poppa may both be women, or
may both be the breadwinners, or may not have sex at all.  the
children may be biological offspring of the parents, adoptees, or
test-tube babies.  the car may be a Mazda or a Chevy.  the home may be
a house or a condo or an apartment.  no one cares that the scarecrow,
tin man, and the lion are actually farm hands, and the witch is a
crotchety old windbag on a bicycle.  we only care that Dorothy makes
it to the end of the yellow brick road.

> The Modern Family includes everyone, gay or straight, married or 
> unmarried, with children or without, who are joined together with
> bonds of affection and who work together for their mutual benefit.  I
> prefer the phrase "modern family" to the phrase "non-traditional
> family" for several reasons:  it's a catchier phrase; it stands on its
> own and doesn't rely on the root "traditional family"; it defines
> people by what they are rather than what they are not; and it is more
> inclusive-- it can include supportive heterosexual couples who have
> the misfortune of being labelled "traditional."

yeah, blah, blah, blah and the misconceptions about families continue
because we continue to add that qualifier at the beginning.  are you
really talking about a different model for a family, or are you
instead just giving a reflection of "traditional family values" where
all the details are reversed?

and what is this thing we call a "family" anyway?  where is it
represented in your phrase?  does the phrase "family values" capture
that we really want a family to be supportive, nurturing, and aware
regardless of it's composition or is it just that the word "values"
frightens *me*?  *whose* values?  *whose* families?
-- 
Jason Coughlin ( jakec@ralvmm.vnet.ibm.com )
Queer Without A Cause!
"I find myself suddenly in the world, and I recognize that I have one
right alone: that of demanding human behavior of the other." -- Fanon