Free Northerner on the real traditional family

04 Jul


The nuclear family is not ‘traditional’ or the way things were, it was an adaptation to modern industrial society. What the article above failed to mention, is that ‘work’ as we know it today, is a recent invention. Until the industrial revolution, most people’s ‘work’ was either the family farm or or the family home business (or in tribal societies, men hunted, women gathered). There was no real separation between work and home life, they were the same. Sadly, we do not exist in that society. To not starve, most people have to work outside the home. The nuclear family is the best adaptation to that economic reality we have.

Ideally, we’d be able to get back to that tribal, extended family structure. One of my hopes, if that someday I will be able to be able to create a tribal structure among my family, and maybe with my friends as well. We’ll live on a mostly self-sustaining farm subsidized by some small income from a couple projects I’m working on. That will take a lot of work, and will be a lifelong project, but hopefully I’ll get there.

It can be done; the Old Order Anabaptists (Mennonite, Hutterite, Amish) are proof that living this way is still possible, and there have been some folks like Wiebo Ludwig and his extended family who have opted to live that way instead of the way the rest of us do… (BTW, they’re still there…)

The Village‘ scenario is an option…

I think it would be great if those who opt to convert to this way of life maintain at least some online presence, rather than living in complete isolation, so they can (a) demonstrate its viability to the outside world, perhaps encouraging potential converts to embrace it, and (b) be able to network with others doing the same thing, so as to be able to meet each other, diversify their respective gene pools through marrying members of each other’s families (to avoid inbreeding problems).


Posted by on July 4, 2014 in Uncategorized


13 responses to “Free Northerner on the real traditional family

  1. Sanne

    July 4, 2014 at 11:42 am

    Will, you may want to check this link:

    Nuclear family has existed in parts of Northern Europe probably as far back as 1200. Full tribalism coupled with the prevalence of cousin marriage hasn’t been a Western European cultural tradition since at least the year 1500 and probably before. I don’t understand why some people keep pushing it.

  2. Will S.

    July 4, 2014 at 1:53 pm

    Hey Sanne, that is interesting.

    I myself don’t have an absolute preference for extended families – I’m enough of a creature of modernity that I like my personal space, and still would value that if I were married – but I can see the appeal of them, and what it is is this: an extended family becomes a refuge against the modern world; it allows people to have the best kind of community to live in – one comprised primarily of kin, who naturally have your back, aren’t as likely as outsiders to betray you, and who through a system of mutual interdependence desire your good fortune as much as their own, since your fortunes are in fact tied together. And it’s easier to protect your children from negative peer pressure if the kind of peer pressure they have is mostly positive rather than negative, which is easier with close family ties, and harder amidst more outsiders.

    Now, I have concerns about too close intermarriage – while I am not absolutely against first cousin intermarriage (Scripture does not forbid it) I don’t think it’s good for it to occur in a small community generation after generation, because then you may well get inbreeding effects, among other problems (I don’t know about over there, but here in North America where Reformed are a minority in most regions, in Reformed circles, many many churches have a few retards and handicapped folks in the congregation, sometimes severely handicapped – often signs of too much intermarriage in a tight social circle) – which is why I advocate, for those who choose to live in this fashion, to keep themselves open to others doing so, so that people can meet, the gene pools be mixed, and avoid such problems.

  3. The Unreal Woman

    July 4, 2014 at 4:28 pm

    Servants still count as part of a household, and that’s always left out of such claims about Northern Europe. They were definitely not servant-free in 1200 anywhere in Northern Europe.

  4. Sanne

    July 4, 2014 at 4:41 pm

    Not everybody had servants, plus nuclear family means simply that adult children leave and start their own household. Servants also normally were not counted as a part of the family in Northern Europe, neither then not now.

    I think that extended family is fine and that people definitely should help their kin and have close contacts with them, it’s just that I don’t fancy living with them under one roof:)

  5. Will S.

    July 4, 2014 at 5:24 pm

    You have to have money to have servants. Even if, as in Third World countries like my mother’s, middle-class people have servants, that’s only because there are so many wretchedly poor available for cheap labour…

    I wouldn’t fancy living with extended family, either, as I noted; I’m far too much a creature of modernity to be comfortable personally with such. 🙂

  6. infowarrior1

    July 4, 2014 at 10:11 pm

    I wonder if this so called firebrand misogynist brand is good for attracting new blood into the reformed community. Considering the tingles girls have for thugs and misogynists like them it could be to the advantage of the men of the reformed community.

    I mean if people are going to hate us anyway might as well be of the firebrand variety with a mysterious masculine mystique rather than as milksops.

  7. Will S.

    July 4, 2014 at 11:35 pm

    “Might as well be hung for a sheep, as a lamb…”, ain’t that right, my Aussie brother? 😉

  8. infowarrior1

    July 4, 2014 at 11:50 pm

    Yep :). Agree and amplify.

  9. Will S.

    July 4, 2014 at 11:51 pm

    Exactly! 🙂

  10. The Unreal Woman

    July 5, 2014 at 3:47 pm

    Oh I see. The definition being used is extremely narrow on purpose. It’s interesting, as that purposefully narrow definition sidesteps considering the possibility of solutions that are neither BAU or full Amish. It’s just a way to justify inaction and implicit support for anti-traditional institutions.

    Thanks for the insight, it was useful at understanding why very untraditional groups are willing to do what self-identifying traditionalists are not. They aren’t wedded to individualism at the family unit level at the cost of, well, restoring normal life.

    • Will S.

      July 5, 2014 at 3:50 pm

      What is ‘BAU’?

  11. Will S.

    July 10, 2014 at 12:51 am

    Business as usual?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s