Talk:Family values/Archive 2

POV: Social conservatives are not all Christian activists
The idea of 'family values' was just that since the 60s, pop culture had been filled with a lot of pro-sex, pro-empowerment, anti-authority messages and very few messages towards things like personal responsibility. Conservatives blamed that for the high divorce rate at the time and the poverty in black communities, which they explained was due to broken families and fatherless children. The argument was just that the culture needs to promote certain values for families to raise children.

The article gives the impression that the only people who are social conservatives or support the idea of 'family values' are Christian activists, and all are basing their position on "Biblical truths". Christian activists have just been one very vocal group, but are even a minority among social conservatives.

The whole introduction of religion in the article at all is a non-sequitur, except to point out that what were considered 'family values' are what are considered traditional values, and for that reason one of the most vocal groups has been the Christian right, since traditional values are supported by religion. User:Brianshapiro


 * You're right. Quiet movers on many fronts do not get the recognition they deserve. This is particularly true in Wikipedia, where we must seek written references for the "facts" we present. The bulk of records around any topic is going to reflect the actions of the vocal players. A couple of other pet subject areas of mine suffer from similar fates. Don't know how we get around it. At least raising it here is good. HiLo48 (talk) 11:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the article supports what is said above. Christianity is not even mentioned in the lede. The second section does discusses the explicitly Christian use of the term, but that use is common.

I do think it would be a good idea to add referenced sources contrasting the almost universally accepted idea that a strong family and personal responsibility are virtues, and use of the term to promote specifically the values of conservative Christianity. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No, what I'm saying is that the POV that you're referring to by "the values of conservative Christianity" is shared by a lot of people who don't identify with Christian activism. A large number of people have conservative, traditional views about sex, drugs, and abortion---think people should wait to have sex, think doing pot is bad, don't support gay marriage, etc.--but hate the evangelicals like Falwell and Robertson who go on TV and try to link that point of view to the Bible. That includes a lot of atheists, and most people who are religious and share those views think these things can be argued about in ways other than religious terms.


 * John McCain, for instance, has very socially conservative views, but has never tried to argue that they were based on "Biblical" sources, or that they specifically have to do with Christianity. Liebermann has moderate-conservative views, he pretty much agrees with the social conservative position, except he believes a womans right to choose should be legally protected. There are even libertarians who believe in the conservative view---Ron Paul for instance.


 * The section on 'conservative and liberal views' gives a lot of specific impressions about what the 'conservative' point of view is which actually only accurately describes a tiny minority of conservatives. Most conservatives would not argue that the government should endorse 'Christian morality' and don't think the goal should be for the culture to reflect 'Biblical values'. Just because evangelicals like Falwell and Robertson are the loudest doesn't mean they represent everyone, or even most people User:Brianshapiro

If the religious conservatives are a tiny minority of conservatives, you need to find a source for that statement before you include it in the article. My impression is that they are a large part of the conservative movement, but that may be because they are so vocal in their beliefs. Have you any hard data? Rick Norwood (talk) 13:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * To start off, you need to make distinctions. A large number of social conservatives probably do attend church and regard religion as an important social institution. But the majority are not fundamentalists, don't like Falwell or Robertson, and don't think arguing their positions based on the Bible makes sense.


 * A good place to begin thinking about this is to just note the referendums on gay marriage in states like California. The majority of voters cast a ballot against gay marriage, yet, the majority of the Californian public obviously does not identify with fundamentalist evangelicals. Recent Gallup polls have also shown that a slim majority of the public (51%) considers now themselves to be pro-life although the majority of those don't agree it should be illegal in every circumstance (the majority of all respondents, 53%, say legal only under certain circumstances). Those things themselves don't address the issue, but I think starting off with that is a way to show that the political debate is more complicated than people make it out to be. It means that a great deal of people who self-identify as 'moderate' actually closer side with the conservative positions than the liberal positions.


 * If you want hard figures, you can first look at a Pew research poll on religion in America . Only 12.6% of Americans define themselves as 'traditionalist evangelical'; although 26.3% report themselves as evangelical, 13.7% of those regard themselves as either 'centrist' or 'modernist'. According to Pew's report on page 4:


 * "Traditionalists were characterized by a high level of orthodox belief (such as a high view of the authority of the Bible) and high religious engagement (such as regular worship attendance), and also a desire to preserve such traditional beliefs and practices in a changing world." ... "By these definitions, Traditionalist Evangelical Protestants were the largest category in Table 1 (12.6% of the 2004 sample). This group comes closest to the “religious right” widely discussed in the media."


 * Among even polls of evangelicals, Falwell and Robertson have had low approval ratings, and respondents actually admire John Paul II more . Falwell has 44.1% and John Paul II has 59.4%.


 * What are the total numbers of social conservatives in the country, and how do they compare to the number of 'traditionalist evangelicals' and how do they compare to people who like Falwell? A Rasmussen poll on the issue is a good answer :


 * "...37% say they are conservative when it comes to “social issues like abortion, public prayer, and church-state topics.” On such social issues, 30% say they are moderate while 30% say liberal."


 * 37% say they're socially conservative, but only 12.6% are define what Pew research calls “religious right”, traditionalist evangelicals. That means only 34% of self-identifying social conservatives have “religious right” views. Even fewer of those people have a positive opinion of Falwell, since the 44% approval of him among evangelicals would mean that there were even people who defined themselves as 'traditionalist' who didn't like him.


 * Now, put that in a larger perspective. While 37% of the public identifies as being 'social conservative', by the Gallup survey on abortion, 51% identify with the socially conservative pro-life position. 24% of those are what Pew calls “religious right”. And, according to Gallup, 57% of the public is opposed to gay marriage . Only 22% of those are what Pew calls “religious right”. So, that means regarding people who support socially conservative positions--say they're pro-life and oppose gay marriage--76% of them are not the “religious right”.


 * So the question I have is.. why are these people's positions overrepresented in the wiki article? User:Brianshapiro

The vote in California on gay-marriage was strongly influenced by two groups, by Black evangelicals and by Mormons, who poured a lot of money into ads. But the original question was not whether most conservatives were evangelicals, but rather whether "Most conservatives would not argue that the government should endorse 'Christian morality' and don't think the goal should be for the culture to reflect 'Biblical values'." Many who argue that the government should endorse Christian morality are Catholic, Mormon, or some other denomination. Rick Norwood (talk) 18:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The point is among those who agree with social conservative positions, and among those who identify themselves as social conservative, very few are actually represented by hard-right evangelicals--- and the evangelicals are the ones who go on TV and preach about the government needing to endorse 'Christian morals' and the country to needing have 'Biblical values'. Its very possible to be religious and disagree with that point of view. Just because you're Catholic and against gay marriage doesn't mean you have to think "Christian morals should be imposed on people". It just means you have a religious belief and a political belief, and they have some degree of alignment.


 * Catholics also tend to be interested in helping the environment, and the Pope says its a moral duty to help the environment. Does that mean they think environmental regulations are "using the government to carry out God's will?" That they support laws against animal abuse because they want "Christian morals imposed on people"? Falwell, Robertson and the like use very pompous, stupid rhetoric, and very few social conservatives like them.


 * Second, I'm not sure what your point is about the vote in California. You think Californians just voted that way because money was poured into ads? The voting was consistent with previous referendums and also plenty of polling data concerning CA. User:Brianshapiro

Money influences elections. It is not the only influence. It is not in every single case the decisive influence. But, statistically, it is the most important influence. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Brianshapiro - if you don't think that money for advertising influences votes, did those paying for the advertising waste their money? HiLo48 (talk) 04:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

"Support for behavior identified as traditional or moral such as discipline and religious commitment"
I removed this section because it's a meaningless politico-religious catchphrase. Discipline of what sort? Religious commitment to what? Of course they identify it as moral, that's why they support it! Of course they identify it as traditional, they're conservative! I suggest clarification if you're going to add it back. Roscelese (talk) 05:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Complementarianism
I hesitate to delet "complementarianism", because it has three references, but it is not a word that is often used. Is there some better way to describe this view? Rick Norwood (talk) 18:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Bravo Wikipedians
In two years, this article has evolved into something quite impressive! When I first view the article in 2011 it was a political tool but now, with the global influence, it is an amazing accomplishment. I would like to see more global influence/interpretation concerning this topic.Stmullin (talk) 01:05, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

definition
Family values: A set of guidelines for defining the structure of a family and the roles of its members within society. Worp 08:56 09 July 2006


 * Before you put in your $64 million worth of thought, the very first thing to do is define the term; that is to say, you agree on what you are talking about in general - before you put your bias to it. What I have written is somewhat a dictionary definition. What has happened is that many people have written on it and discussed it and revised it and not one is talking about the same thing! Worp 09:07 09 July 2006

tour
how bout the annual(?) rock festival tour?
 * Good point! That article is at Family Values Tour, but it wasn't linked from this article. I added a link so that people can find it from here. If you have anything to add about the tour, feel free to edit its page. Rhobite 13:52, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * Ah! nice diversion. This topic needs a bit of R 'n' R. :) -- Quinobi 17:13, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Queer families
"...other types of families, such as single-parent families and queer families." The phrase "queer families" is a good target for the PC-police, but, more importantly, the term itself is a bit vague--what constitutes a "queer family"? Perhaps the phrase is more popularly used than I thought; if so, perhaps it should have its own article. --- Erik Carson 17:19, 2004 Apr 7 (UTC)


 * Queer family is a bad term. However this article should include information on gay families.  Some same-sex couples do choose to raise children and have families just like anybody else.  In the current state of the article it defines these same-sex headed families against family values, which is highly inaccurate, not to mention stereotypical.  Not everyone is alike, whether you are gay or straight we are all unique from one another.  After all gay Republicans do exist; look at Mary Cheney for example. --- Apollomelos 16:41, 2004 Jan 22 (UTC)


 * Appolomelos, the article has been rewritten since the comment you replied to was posted. If you want to add detailed, attributed material on how gays react to "family values" rhetoric, that would be wonderful. Gazpacho 23:49, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Sure, I'll draft something up in word. However since you seem to watch this page quite a bit and have researched more than I have, let me know if you have any suggestions when I post it.  Any added input would be helpful.  Thanks.  Apollomelos


 * The phrase "queer families" reflects a shift in GLBT and third-wave feminism towards the use of the word "queer" to reflect any number of sexual orientations or self-definitions rather than pigeonholing people into narrow categories like "straight", "gay", etc. There's a good deal of literature on queer theory (cf. Judith Butler) and it's worth looking into. Smitty

Splitting conservative and liberal definitions
I think that the current organization of the article, in which there is an argumentative "conservative stance" section followed by a "liberal stance" section is bad and un-encyclopedic. I've re-written it in a way I think is much better. COGDEN 19:26, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * Thank you, you've made the article many times better. Some may see it as being biased against conservatives, we'll see what happens. Rhobite 20:36, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes it's a bit better but I still think a difinite statement based in 'pure neutrality' should go at the top. I added the Category:Sociology. Maybe linking this to the Computational sociology article is in order. It links here. Quinobi 12:18, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * My opinion is that the current lead sentence is NPOV, but go right ahead if you think it needs improvement. Rhobite 13:44, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

Only nuclear families?
"Family values are political and social beliefs that hold the Nuclear family to be the essential ethical and moral unit of society".

What about traditional extended families? Do family values not apply to them as well? Have any of the proponents of "family values" made any statements about this either way? Wardog (talk) 14:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed, I find the current article is a bit biased towards the North American Conservative Christian "Family Values". I am aware that Hispanics and Chinese families may widen their definition of what constitutes a family, as many Hispanics and Chinese families live in extended families and use other configurations of the family. 65.24.105.132 (talk) 02:43, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Chinese family values
This article is misleading. The top part of the article talks about the nuclear family, and then way down below talks about Chinese family values. I don't know about you, but Chinese family values are not just about the nuclear family (parents and children), but the extended family (grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, parents, children). In Chinese society, it is common to have aging parents live with their grownup, working children and dependent grandchildren. 65.24.105.132 (talk) 02:37, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


 * That's what you get when a political group co-opts a common English expression that has multiple meanings to try to get it to possess only the particular meaning that group would like it to have. The second sentence says "...the phrase family values is vague and has shifting meanings", but then goes on to say that "...it is most often associated with social and religious conservatives." While that group would perhaps like to restrict the meaning, this article tries to discuss the meaning in many cultural settings. I'm not convinced it does that as well as it might, but that's up to all of us to fix. HiLo48 (talk) 02:46, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I think the English term may be associated with social and religious conservative Christian political activists. However, this idea is still being unfair to the Chinese people, because Confucianism is pretty much the cultural norm in East Asian countries in that anybody of any faith may be subject to it. It has become an integral component of Chinese culture, and it is much needed today to counteract the pervasive effects of Communism in Chinese society, focusing on the social cohesion, social sensitivity, and community, and maintaining collectivism. The following article can be served as support for my explanation.


 * Anqi, X., & Yan, X. (2014). The Changes in Mainland Chinese Families During the Social Transition: A Critical Analysis. Journal Of Comparative Family Studies, 44(2), 31-53.

China has only one party, so there is no use for political activists, and they may be in danger if they go against the one-party government. So, putting Chinese family values up there really doesn't make any sense, since that is more part of the culture rather than some sort of political/social campaign. 65.24.105.132 (talk) 03:49, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


 * There's a lot of people with Chinese backgrounds who don't live in China, and who still follow traditional Chinese customs. HiLo48 (talk) 03:57, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Of course. My family is one of them. My parents were immigrants, and I tagged along when I was four, attending American schools since kindergarten; of course, I am a US citizen now. I am well aware of the mainstream American family values of personal independence, personal freedom, self-sufficiency, individual identity, and personal happiness. American families value their children's independence, so they set up nurseries as separate bedrooms on Day 1. Chinese families may have the child literally sleep with the parents or closely with the parents, beyond the crib years. American families value personal happiness. If they are happy, then they can be productive in society. It is common in Chinese families to seek approval or at least be concerned of the happiness of your family members in important decisions like finding a marriage spouse or excelling in school, as Chinese people are generally raised to be socially sensitive. This may be seen as a weakness, though, in American culture. 65.24.105.132 (talk) 04:31, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Use of family values as a common term in sociological journals
The term, "family values," as used in countless sociological journals, is anything but political. It's not like "This is what society should be; this is how we should run the government based on what we consider to be family values for the nation." Instead, family values are used to describe the values that people hold in regards to the family structure, function, roles, focus, etc. Plus, this article is too Western-centric. Almost nothing is focused about the family values of non-Western cultures, besides the one sentence at the top paragraph that talks about extended family. As a matter of fact, many non-Western cultures stress the importance of extended family. I am making a placeholder here. In any case, I am going to add my knowledge about Chinese culture and family values WITH scholarly references. 65.24.105.132 (talk) 23:38, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Coinage of the term, "family values"
We really need an etymology section, or a place to describe the coinage of the term, "family values". Questions may be: when did this term first appear in print? In what context was it used? What did it mean then, in that particular historical context? How did this term's meaning evolve over time? 71.79.234.132 (talk) 18:47, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Familialism
Family values is a euphemism for Familialism, and all the political parties listed promote familialism -- Aronzak (talk) 09:34, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Family values. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131104044039/http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/10/31/walking_the_walk_on_family_values/ to http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/10/31/walking_the_walk_on_family_values/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:40, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Too many "See also" with unclear relation
I moved these "See also" links to here, because their relation to family values is not entirely clear: I think it would be better to integrate these topics as prose, explaining their relation to family values. Mikael Häggström (talk) 11:44, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Children's Online Privacy Protection Act
 * Communications Decency Act of the Telecommunications Act of 1996
 * Compassionate conservatism
 * Constitution Party
 * Culture of Life
 * Dominionism
 * Glittering generality
 * Heteronormativity
 * Homosexual agenda
 * Missionary Generation
 * Pro-life
 * Sexual norm
 * Social aspects of clothing
 * Southern strategy
 * Victorian morality
 * William Bennett