|
Family Life in a Global Context
|
|
| MissJane | Date: Monday, 31.10.2011, 18:40 | Message # 1 |
 Union organizer
Group: Friends
Messages: 193
Status: Offline
| Family is traditionally defined as a cell of the society. But it does not only fulfill the function of the structure-forming unit. A family is a society itself. Social laws work in all spheres of family relations, they establish duties, responsibilities, ways of achieving security. The concept of family can manifest itself in various forms of mutual relationships: democracy, authoritarianism, liberalism, total permissiveness, complete equality and independence. Nowadays family reflects the changes happening in society as a whole. As our society tends to be capitalistic and a person as a subject of society accumulates and isolates his/her property, the members of the family start to have their own, inviolable belongings. This is also reflected in family relations: marital agreements are concluded, the ex-spouses go into partition of property during the divorce, and it has become a norm. Family is a mirror of all processes taking their course in society.
|
| |
| |
| Rina | Date: Monday, 31.10.2011, 20:47 | Message # 2 |
 Union committee president
Group: Friends
Messages: 208
Status: Offline
| Speaking about the concept “family” it seems relevant to define the very notion. According to the dictionary, a family is “a primary social group consisting of parents and their offspring, the principal function of which is provision for its members”. This definition can seem unsatisfying, while it is focused on “parents-offspring” relations and therefore we can't use the notion “family” speaking about a married couple (a wife and a husband) who still haven't got children. That's why other definitions are advisable. Family is “a group of persons sharing common ancestry”, “a group of people held together by bonds of love and kinship”, “a primary social group consisting of a man and a woman, married and unmarried, with or without children, members of one household”, etc. Notwithstanding the fact that every person can provide his/her own definition of this notion, based on personal experience, shaped vision and associations the essence remains the same – family is a social group, members of which are connected on the basis of kinship, mutual dependence, mutual support and mutual respect.
|
| |
| |
| Tanya | Date: Wednesday, 02.11.2011, 22:13 | Message # 3 |
 Course monitor
Group: Friends
Messages: 61
Status: Offline
| Family is an inseparable part of our society. It is the basic social unit. Family represents people living together by ties of marriage, blood or adaptation, thus representing a single household. Family represents people who love and take care of each other.
|
| |
| |
| Teacher | Date: Thursday, 03.11.2011, 00:21 | Message # 4 |
 Head teacher
Group: Admins
Messages: 375
Status: Offline
| Family is the basic unit of society. There is one more point of view concerning this concept. Families keep traditions and customs of any society. Families influence and maintain political, economic, social states of the society. More than that families are concentrations of emotions. This means that mental side of our life is closly connected with the concept "family". A full-fledged person can be grown up only in a family.
In Vino Veritas...
|
| |
| |
| Asya | Date: Thursday, 03.11.2011, 10:26 | Message # 5 |
 Union committee president
Group: Moders
Messages: 298
Status: Offline
| You all are right. But there is one question I've tried to find the answer for. And nobody has touched upon that yet. When speaking about families, we're discussing kinship and support (or somewhat like that). But what about incomplete families? The family is supposed to be incomplete when some of the parents is missing. But why is it incomplete? there is kinship! And there are excellent relations in such a family! Or, why don't we refer families without children to incomplete ones? Can a family be complete if it has no future? No development? Just a married couple?
Another thing, can we say that if family members don't get along well, they're still a family? Officially - yes, but what do we call them?
And one more question. What is better for children, to live in "incomplete" families or in "normal" ones, but where parents seem to hate each other and keep quarrelling all the time?
Could somebody share his/her thoughts with me?
|
| |
| |
| Teacher | Date: Wednesday, 09.11.2011, 02:02 | Message # 6 |
|
Head teacher
Group: Admins
Messages: 375
Status: Offline
| Asya, I think a family is a group of two or more people having positive relationships and taking care of each other. As to the so-to-say incomplete families we can call them so only from the physical of juridical point of view.
Quote (Asya) Can a family be complete if it has no future?
Actually, I don't understand you completely, but I'll try to comment upon this issue. Any family has future. Just a married couple also has future (at least as a baby). Family can be called a social living organism, it can change its size (new children, husbands/wives, etc.), it can develop and maintain new traditions and customs, and, unfortunately, it can also die.
In Vino Veritas...
|
| |
| |
| Asya | Date: Wednesday, 09.11.2011, 16:57 | Message # 7 |
|
Union committee president
Group: Moders
Messages: 298
Status: Offline
| Quote (Asya) Or, why don't we refer families without children to incomplete ones? Can a family be complete if it has no future? No development? Just a married couple?
"No future" referred to families without children.
|
| |
| |
| Teacher | Date: Wednesday, 09.11.2011, 17:33 | Message # 8 |
|
Head teacher
Group: Admins
Messages: 375
Status: Offline
| Asya, even families without children have future. And probably their future is their future children.
In Vino Veritas...
|
| |
| |
| Luck | Date: Wednesday, 09.11.2011, 22:05 | Message # 9 |
|
Union organizer
Group: Friends
Messages: 172
Status: Offline
| I did not get it what you meant telling us that families without children have their future and it’s their children because I think that if there is no child in a family of 2 people who are, let’s say 40, then there still will never be a child in this family in 10 or 20 years. Nevertheless I agree with you: families without children still have future! Why not?? We are not speaking about our generation and whether it will have future or not. And we are not talking about a demographic situation. And so children are only a part of that future that is usually “prepared” for a family. And if a family is simply not able to have a child then it still does not mean that it will never achieve something that will be important for this very family as well.
|
| |
| |
| Teacher | Date: Thursday, 10.11.2011, 01:51 | Message # 10 |
|
Head teacher
Group: Admins
Messages: 375
Status: Offline
| Luck, I said Quote (Seagull) probably their future is their future children.
In Vino Veritas...
|
| |
| |
| lovefootball) | Date: Monday, 19.12.2011, 21:46 | Message # 11 |
 Dean
Group: Users
Messages: 662
Status: Offline
| Agree, the point is not even in the inability to have children but also in unwillingness. Of course it's knocked to our heads that we should create families exactly for giving birth to children so that we don't die out and I share this viewpoint completely. It's nature and nothing better has ever been invented) But! One's free will is one of the most precious gifts and it's not obligatory for everyone to dream of offsprings. Maybe these people need more time or they're simply quite happy as it is and that's the main thing!
|
| |
| |
| Teacher | Date: Thursday, 22.12.2011, 01:32 | Message # 12 |
|
Head teacher
Group: Admins
Messages: 375
Status: Offline
| lovefootball), is this enogough to be motivated only by nature in case of giving birth to children? Or can we another more ideal reason?
In Vino Veritas...
|
| |
| |
| lovefootball) | Date: Sunday, 29.01.2012, 17:04 | Message # 13 |
|
Dean
Group: Users
Messages: 662
Status: Offline
| I don't regard nature as a motive at all because this interpretation will definitely lead to such loud manifests as "the more children the better" and so on. You know what I mean. But I've always disapproved of people who give birth to many children and who aren't rich and responsible enough to support them and give them EVERYTHING (it doesn't presuppose indulgence to all whims but "everything" in the best sense of this word).
|
| |
| |
| Strawberry1992 | Date: Thursday, 24.05.2012, 23:40 | Message # 14 |
|
Monitor
Group: Users
Messages: 38
Status: Offline
| The whole world is the changing family life and structure which is apparently noticeable in the developed as well as the developing countries of the world . This challenge is mainly credited to the wave of globalization . The present , henceforth looks into this issue . It examines family structure in a technologically advanced country (i .e , the United States of America for our case ) and in a developing country (India in this instance , and then attempts to arrive at solid conclusions as in what ways the thrashing wave of globalization is impacting family life and /or structure of these countries.
|
| |
| |
| strawberry | Date: Monday, 17.09.2012, 11:23 | Message # 15 |
 Monitor
Group: Users
Messages: 21
Status: Offline
| How are families the same or different around the world?
there are many circumstances influence it,or environment,or other people. there are similarities and differences into perspective, presenting an analysis of family life in different countries around the world. It describes the types of family patterns within each country's social organization and culture. It`s very difficult,but interesting to compare people,their ways of life and their behaviour in different environment and circumstances
|
| |
| |
