Sentences with phrase «many nuclear families»

They found that whites were overly associated with categories like nostalgia (craftspeople and tradition), natural (wholesome foods, agriculture) and the stereotypical nuclear family.

I hope to convince J.D. that while I grew up with very liberal, Jewish parents (dad from South America) in California, and in a nuclear family without alcohol or violence, I experienced surprisingly similar parallels to many of J.D.'s societal views — even if we may have drawn moderately different conclusions about the underlying solutions.

Employees born in the 1960s formed their earliest memories during the time when cultural traumas like assassinations, protests, war, impeachment and riots shook the nuclear family.

The idea of not being violent towards women has evolved a very long time ago, when strong violent men posed a serious threat to women and subsequently to the nuclear family strucutre, aka REPRODUCITION.

Stats prove that people growing up in the nuclear family have a much better chance of success.

What is less clear to me is why complementarians like Keller insist that that 1 Timothy 2:12 is a part of biblical womanhood, but Acts 2 is not; why the presence of twelve male disciples implies restrictions on female leadership, but the presence of the apostle Junia is inconsequential; why the Greco - Roman household codes represent God's ideal familial structure for husbands and wives, but not for slaves and masters; why the apostle Paul's instructions to Timothy about Ephesian women teaching in the church are universally applicable, but his instructions to Corinthian women regarding head coverings are culturally conditioned (even though Paul uses the same line of argumentation — appealing the creation narrative — to support both); why the poetry of Proverbs 31 is often applied prescriptively and other poetry is not; why Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob represent the supremecy of male leadership while Deborah and Huldah and Miriam are mere exceptions to the rule; why «wives submit to your husbands» carries more weight than «submit one to another»; why the laws of the Old Testament are treated as irrelevant in one moment, but important enough to display in public courthouses and schools the next; why a feminist reading of the text represents a capitulation to culture but a reading that turns an ancient Near Eastern text into an apologetic for the post-Industrial Revolution nuclear family is not; why the curse of Genesis 3 has the final word on gender relationships rather than the new creation that began at the resurrection.

And more often than not, it imposes upon an ancient Near Eastern text Western assumptions regarding gender roles and the nuclear family, rendering the woman celebrated in Proverbs 31, for example, into little more than a happy homemaker prototype.

Feminism has been blamed for the breakdown of the nuclear family, day care, physical and sexual abuse, hurricanes, the downfall of «real manhood,» the decline of the Christian Church in western society, and spectacularly bad television.

Forasteros» review of «Real Marriage» for Relevant «The model of marriage, family and maturity the Driscolls build is more a reinvigorated idealization of the nuclear family than something that arises from the Scriptures.

(am not able to remember the passage location at this moment) and selling the daughter is part of that... you forget... they were nOT a nuclear family unit!

She condemns the ideology of what she calls «the nuclear family» (that is a wife and husband who have received the sacrament of matrimony and have children) claiming that it is, in some way, «a defence of capitalism».

This might be from family structures (which these days are increasingly unlikely to resemble the traditional nuclear family), community groups, church, political organisations and other institutions.

This approach is a significant answer to the dilemma of the isolated nuclear family — a problem that's particularly difficult during the early and most vulnerable years of a marriage.

Today the term «family» is no longer attached exclusively to conjugal or nuclear families comprising a husband, wife, and their dependent children.

[It should be noted here that complementarian notions of manhood and womanhood tend to be based on culturally — influenced stereotypes, many of which project idealized notions of the post-industrial revolution nuclear family onto biblical texts rather than taking those texts on their own terms — a topic we've discussed at length in the past and will continued to discuss in the future.]

Christian fundamentalists have been strong supporters of family values, the preservation of the nuclear family, the prohibition of sex outside of marriage.

He establishes this point through ipse dixit («The middle - class nuclear family will not be restored to its former place, nor do most people want it to be»), the persuasive force of clichés about the sexual revolution (Had you heard that the 1960s gave us a pill that allowed women to take control of their bodies?)

A feminist critique of domestic relations held that the nuclear family was a power structure set up to enable and conceal the abusive predations of men.

Daniel and Elizabeth's experience (and that of couples like them) makes an important truth very clear: The current practice of middle - class American marriage, with its atomized nuclear families, sparse and carefully spaced offspring, and long empty - nesting period before grandchildren arrive, is a recipe for dissatisfaction.

Research shows that none of the alternatives to the intact nuclear family (first marriages) performs this task as well.

The distinction between the nuclear and traditional family was also blurred in the recent report on human sexuality by the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) titled Keeping Body and Soul Together: «Although many Christians in the post-World War II era have a special emotional attachment to the nuclear family, with its employed father, mother at home, and two or more school - aged children, that profile currently fits only 5 percent of North American households.»

The so - called traditional or modern family was nuclear, but not all nuclear families are traditional.

The idea of the nuclear family, on the other hand, refers to a bonded mother and father raising one or more children.

This sentence seems to refer to all nuclear families; it really refers only to traditional families.

Some Protestant leaders are striving to broaden the church's ministry to include the growing plurality of family forms — to include as coequals with the intact nuclear family all single - parent families, the divorced and remarried, blended families, childless couples, unmarried couples living together, and gay and lesbian couples with or without children.

Research shows that none of the alternatives to the intact nuclear family (first marriages) performs well the task of rearing children.

Since the traditional family was for decades the dominant form of the nuclear family, the two concepts get confused in people's minds.

A speaker at one of the pre-sessions at the «Families 2000» conference, sponsored by the National Council of Churches, after elaborating the problems of the traditional family, exclaimed at three points: «The nuclear family is dead.

During its plenary sessions the recent conference «Families 2000» came dangerously close to suggesting that in response to family disintegration, individualism and loneliness the church should become the new family surrogate, a warm and accepting replacement for the puny, broken and disappearing nuclear families whose remains are strewn across the social landscape.

The archaeological research at the site in 1973 (Jerusalem School of Archaeology, «Bible & Spade Journal») shows that there were no nuclear family dwellings inside the city walls, but that men lived with men, and women and children in separate housing.

In their introduction to Domestic Revolution: A Social History of Domestic Family Life (Free Press, 1987) Steven Mintz and Susan Kellogg paint a portrait of family life today: Today the term «family» is no longer attached exclusively to conjugal or nuclear families comprising a husband, wife, and their dependent children.

While Knust does a great job deconstructing our idealized notions that the Bible unilaterally supports the nuclear family, abstinence before marriage, and women's equality, I think she takes some of her own conclusions a bit too far at times — for example, suggesting that David and Jonathan were definitely lovers.

As expected, I found that most of the folks calling for a return to «biblical womanhood» aren't actually calling for a return to the ancient near Eastern familial structure, but for a return to the nuclear family of pre-1950s America.

The new industrial cities created enormous freedom: people moved to the cities and lived there alone, or with their nuclear families, but without the significant community ties that simultaneously offered moral guidance and limited their choices.

The term nuclear family is used by sociologists to refer to the smallest family unit, typically that of two parents and their children.

As is the case with atomic power, the nuclear family has the potential to be a social force that is constructive or destructive.

Contemporary conservative churches often... [center] attention on the nuclear family.

An outstanding characteristic of the nuclear family since then is the extent to which some parents may be an almost exclusive source of affection for children.6

By the family I do not mean only what nowadays sociologists call «the nuclear family» — husband, wife, and children.

Sociologists and anthropologists have spoken of the way in which the nuclear family — the small group of three or four persons — can be vicious because it may (not must) become centered on its own existence and, hence, entirely inward - looking — like a pond with no outlet.

The nuclear family is an isolated family.

Yet even as Moon interrupts normal family relations and appropriates the authority of parents, church literature refers to family values, clearly referring not to the church family but to the traditional nuclear family.

Editor: Interestingly the logo for the World Meeting of Families depicts not only the immediate nuclear family but also the extended family and, in particularly, grandparents.

The ideal of the private dwelling and the normativeness of the nuclear family embody, cut off from those outside the immediate household and deliberately limited in the opportunity to interact with others, reflects the substantialist view of reality as composed of discrete, isolated substances.

The small family unit known as a nuclear family today is the typical family type of the modern era in Western cultures.1 During the last two hundred years, identity has been associated more with the family unit than with larger social units like a congregation.

Furthermore, anyone who has studied ancient Near Eastern culture knows that the familial structure we see represented in scripture was nothing like the nuclear family epitomized by the Cleavers, but would rather have included multiple generations and relatives living together in clans, with women working long hours «outside of the home» in the fields, tending sheep, gathering food, trading goods, etc..

Rogers, for example, says: «Marriage and the nuclear family constitute a failing... way of life....

I too am tired of selective appeals to «biblical marriage» that tend to glorify the modern nuclear family as the only ideal and render real people with real lives into a mere political / religious «issue,» and I too am reluctant to support an establishment that sends part of its profits to the Family Research Council, an organization that has fed blatant misinformation about homosexuality to Christians for years.

Christ was born, he preached, to a world as disparate as shepherds and kings, not merely to nuclear families, and the way the church witnessed God's new embrace at Christmas should be by congregation - wide Communion, not private huddles at the altar.

This foyer, along with the corridor, is used as a space for social interaction with each other and for entertainment of common visiting friends and relatives Second, there is a rear opening for each unit of the house, which serves as the residence of the respective nuclear family that leads into a common play area.