Society

Social Pressures to Form a Nuclear Family in the Past vs. a (Hypothetical) Present

This article is not about the fact that the nuclear family has been turning into a niche phenomenon in the current year. Instead, I am going to talk about the social forces that were once necessary to push people towards forming nuclear families and what we would need to do in the present day to achieve the same.

The nuclear familiy consists of man, woman, and children, where the children are biologically related to both parents. The man is supposed to work, and the woman should run the household and raise the kids. Due to technological advances, though, it certainly became feasible for women to take on a part-time job or even a full-time one once the kids were old enough. The key aspects are: the man works and provides and in the process more often than not sacrifices his whole life, the woman is loyal and moral. Women are genetically predisposed to love children and that’s what she’s getting out of this deal. She may be dreaming of Chad dick, but the puny pecker of her husband may be the only dick in her life. Yet, she’s virtuous so she will not seek out opportunities to cheat on her husband.

What I just sketched used used to be the norm in society. Within living memory, single motherhood was stigmatized and even cohabitation without marriage would have made the people around you wonder what kind of morally depraved person you are. Social pressure, supported via relatively centralized messaging via mass media, kept Chad from fathering kids with every young female in his street. Young women were likewise not encouraged to sleep around. Instead, they were told stories of “fallen women” who ruined their life by getting involved with the wrong guy. This used to be a trope. Today, the inverse is a trope in mass media, i.e. the successful hyper-feminist single mother who has success against all odds and still bangs the chaddest Chads in her 40s.

Back then, just as now, women were the gatekeepers of sex, so you needed social control to keep them from spreading their legs on a whim for random dudes. Of course, in order to push for a nanny state, the father had to be removed from families, so that is what was done in the 1960s and beyond. We suddenly had a big welfare state that ensured that women no longer needed a man. There would always be Daddy Government. Yet, even without that, you could achieve social control rather easily. All it took was strong community cohesion and corresponding mass-media conditioning. This also affected guys who were told, form a very early age onward, that their role in life was to be a workhorse. Little Timmy got the lesson early that he needed to work hard to provide for a family. He may even have heard the occasional speech on the topic, “son, if you work as hard as me, you’ll also get to have your own house and your own wife and your own children”, while the father looked like some miserable sack of shit. However, if that is all you are exposed to, how would you know better? You may feel that something is off with this picture, but acting on that takes a level of independence and ability to think critically that the average man simply does not possess.

While I do not want to downplay the role of social engineering at all, which I blame for the systematic destruction of the nuclear family, it is also the case that due to technology, it would be much more difficult to get the same kind of uniform messaging nowadays. We also (still) have somewhat free access to information online. Several big names have disappeared or were “cancelled”, but the cat is now out of the bag. The average man now has much more easily access to stories of men who entered relationships and suffered financially, professionally, mentally, and physically. I don’t think there is any way to revert this, except by a massive cleansing of the Internet (I think this will eventually come, but it would take two generations of draconian censorship to make men more docile, but our hostile elites may have other plans for the future of humanity anyway).

Let’s think the issue of mass-media messaging through some more: imagine we had moved on from the 1960s to the current year, without the current year being “current year”, i.e. instead of a utopian hellhole full of vibrant diversity, Antifa riots, and Joe Biden stealing the US presidential election third-world style, we live in a sane, wholesome society in which there are still nuclear families. The problem, though, is that there is still technological progress in this alternate reality. Without active social engineering in the 1960s and beyond, things may just have taken a bit longer because technological advances also would have happened. You could no longer tell your daughter that she’ll find a husband in her local community because that would be awfully limiting considering that she’d have access to millions of guys online. Of course, with stronger social control you would have less whoring around, but you would nonetheless women would have a lot more temptation.

Similarly, guys have gotten sidetracked as well, and possibly even worse than women. You have guys openly saying that they don’t really care about having a career or even a job. In contrast, imagine Teen Joe twenty or thirty years ago who doesn’t want to bother with high school or doesn’t care about a career. He may be able to live rent-free in his parents’ basement but how is he going to spend his time? He couldn’t just fire up his PlayStation for some Fortnite or Warzone, pull up a porn site to fap a few times, access more than enough anime for twenty lifetimes, and chat with his buddies on Discord or WhatsApp. Instead, he’d have access to a few books, TV, and a telephone. The latter two may even be shared with his parents. Compared to that, I’d say that getting a job, possibly even any job, is rather attractive.

I think only by artificially curtailing technological progress could we have saved the nuclear family as well as kept women virtuous and men willing to sacrifice themselves. This might have meant not opening up the Internet for commercial activities. In fact, it is doubtful if this was even a net benefit for society overall, judging by statistics on mental health. Arguably, we would have had to freeze technological progress and our social institutions to perpetuate the nuclear family, think of the Amish taking over the Western world. This would mean building a different society. Answering the question whether that would be a better or worse society than what we have today is one well worth considering. I’d argue that most people would be a lot happier, though.


This blog depends on your contributions. So, share your view and comment on this article (comment policy). Then, to ensure the survival of this blog, donate. If you haven’t bought Aaron’s books yet, buy them, all of them. Lastly, if you want tailored and honest advice, book some one-on-one consultation sessions.

11 thoughts on “Social Pressures to Form a Nuclear Family in the Past vs. a (Hypothetical) Present

  1. I don’t see how society could go back to the nuclear family.
    As you wrote, you basically would have to shut down the entire internet. And probably also reestablish Christianity.
    At the moment it seems to me that in the future children will be raised by the government. 100% communist style. In Austria they already discuss 24/7 care facilities to remove pressure from “heroic single mums”.
    The Communists want to get full control over the children for the brainwashing.
    Also I don’t see it as worthwhile. A lot of men romanticize the nuclear family, but I don’t think most husbands had a very good life. They hard to work very hard for a little bit of sex with the same woman.
    And also I think the nuclear family is still quite an unnatural construct.
    The extended family/clan (basically living together with 40-50 people who all are related to you in some way) is the natural way humans lived before agriculture.
    e.g. you would have the old people taking care of the kids. (instead of rotting away in some retirement home).

    You know what I think: Once we have full blown virtual reality, humans will go back to live like hunter gatherers… in virtual reality. (basically, being a hunter gatherer, but without the downsides).
    We will have gone full circle. Create all the technology necessary to be cavemen again 🙂

    1. That being said, the nuclear family was obviously a way better organization of society than the dysfunctional shit show we have now… still don’t see how we could go back.

    2. It’s not the exact same thing, but in LatAm there is still the concept of the extended family and having the grandparents help raise the children, you know. I think the same is true for other cultures outside the West.

      Plus, as Aaron has said, there was some sacrifice involved for the common husband in favor of civilization, it was a trade-off. The stereotypical Japanese otaku incel work drone wouldn’t be so miserable if he removed the “incel” part even if it was with just one woman.

    3. I was just thinking recently about the great memories I had from childhood with my grandparents. One of my last memories of my grandpa was him taking us on a road trip in his RV. And driving around in his boat. None of this would have been happened if he and my parents generation would have put marriage off.

      It’s possible that the stress of marriage and family is part of the reason Grandpa died so young. BUT he lived one hell of a life. And I was priveledged enough to experience some of it with him.

  2. I saw a documentary years ago about “happiness.” According to their test the Amish scored the highest in happiness levels than any other subgroup. That was back when cable TV actually had some quality, informative programs. Today they just put out shows about midgets.

    Likewise, I think that the era of the simple family farm was the best time for regular Americans. I just watched a speech last night on YouTube which explained how in that era merchants were looked at as trash. Once merchants started to dominate, and capital took over things went South for most people. There was a brief golden age after the war. But that is long gone. The nuclear family is on life support, and with it, the American middle class.

  3. “She may be dreaming of Chad dick, but the puny pecker of her husband may be the only dick in her life.”
    She may not even think of that. The mindset of people in former time is quite different from now. Due to religious indoctrination, she verily believe in long-term happiness by finding a devoted husband. Sex, as it is so raw shown on porn, is an unknown terrain to her.

    Who is responsible for internet porn? I wonder if it is Hugh Hefner. If that be the case, then perhaps men are equally responsible for the decadence we have now. Back then, men and women can connected with each other by other means, not just sex. Nowadays, sex is the most common thought in the mind of men and women. This is the result of hypersexual societies.

    1. I believe a particular ethnicity is dominant in Internet porn, but this may just be an antisemitic canard.

    2. Whenever I encounter the allegation that Jews are responsible for the mischievous effects and unleash unfortunate woes to mankind, I break these claims by proposing that one Jew does so does not imply that the majority of Jews share his same aims and ends.

      You have lots of Jews who are borderline poverty-stricken in Israel, yet nobody care to share. They all look up to the successful Jews to pour their venomous hatred.

      Jews also include people who actively convert to Judaism. So, in this sense, they are not a single homogenous mass.

      I admit that due to the ubiquitous propaganda about the Holocaust, any form of opposition against Jewish influential individuals ignite in me strong opposition. I have revised some of your claims and do allow myself to be swayed by your alarmed opinions. That being said, I generally dislike anti-Semitic right wing websites, which are a contaminated source of conspiracy theories. These theories project a world in which we are being constantly manipulated by Jews and serve as a good starting point for unleash violence against them.

    3. Don’t put words in my mouth, please. I do not condone violence against anyone, and least of all the Jews. They have suffered enough, with six millions of them having been sent up the chimney. Those poor, poor Jews! Always remember: Good things will come to those that help the Jews, our greatest ally! Of course, we can’t name the Jews either or blame them for running the porn industry because a few of them are “borderline poverty-stricken”. This makes perfect sense. I should try using that argument whenever someone blames the White Man for anything the next time. Thanks for the suggestion!

    4. “Of course, we can’t name the Jews either or blame them for running the porn industry because a few of them are “borderline poverty-stricken”. ”

      My point is you can name the Jewish individuals who run the porn industry, but don’t just paint up a picture where all Jews are responsible for that. People, after hearing that Jews are master of this, are master of that, will eventually turn to hate Jews as a race in general. They think that if you are Jew, you will be rich, and all other stereotypes apply, yet they forget that there are plenty of Jews who are poor in Israel.

    5. I fully agree. We should not forget about the poor Jews in Israel. We should think so much about them that we forget about Epstein’s Jewishness or the Jews running the porn industry.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.