Diana Wichtel: Families come in many forms

COMMENT

What is a family? My mother grew up in one that included a stepfather and seven brothers and sisters. They aren't all full siblings, not that it ever occurs to her to make that distinction. In his early teens, my partner's mother died and the family was raised by his dad.

My mother put in some years as a solo mum in an era when the Government, plus everyone from landlords to employers to banks, did their best to make her life miserable because one rigid definition of family was favoured over all others.

"The Family" has always been a useful power site when it comes to scoring political and moral points, left and right. But I can't see why Government policy should be crafted to give families that don't strictly conform a hard time just to uphold the ideal of the traditional nuclear family.

How traditional is the modern nuclear family, anyway? It is only relatively recently that it has come to mean Mum, Dad, two kids and a computer, passing like ships in the night on the way to work, the gym, sport, music lessons. Not so long ago you would have had mum in the kitchen, chooks in the yard, and nana in the back bedroom.

Never mind liberals, the modern family is under attack by its own isolated, increasingly frantic lifestyle. Plenty of studies show there is a lot of stress between those highly mortgaged, ideal family walls. They don't call it "nuclear" for nothing.

Even in the good old days, non-ideal things such as wars, family violence, divorce (also known as "life") meant the mistily remembered, "Hi, honey, I'm home" version of domestic bliss wasn't always an option.

So it is disheartening to find the debate over the definition of family, occasioned by the setting up of the new Families Commission, reduced to a playground exchange of "My family's better than yours".

The language thrown around at these times is always telling. Steve Maharey has been attacked for saying one type of family would not be "privileged" over another. Peter Dunne has taken stick because the commission won't favour any particular type of family.

Among the meanings for "favour" in my dictionary are "unfair preference" and "prejudice and partiality". Is that how we want a Families Commission to operate?

This week, Dunne clarified his position in a letter to the editor. The commission will apparently be "promoting" stable two-parent relationships but other forms won't be "discouraged" or "ignored".

Maharey, who shares the Prime Minister's gift for raising conservative hackles, hasn't helped. His declaration that sole-mother families are "just as good" as the nuclear family only propelled the debate further along the same simplistic, polarising track.

He also said: "I know of no social science that says a nuclear family is more successful than other kinds. It's whether you have a loving, nurturing family."

Well, of course there are studies that show children from single-parent homes can be at a disadvantage, although there is plenty of argument over other factors involved.

There are also studies that show that some non-traditional families, such as single fathers and gay parents, get good outcomes. It's to do with something called the "exceptional parent syndrome".

The road to gay parenthood and, to a lesser extent, to single fatherhood is so tough that those who get there tend to be motivated.

Even if you accept that children might be disadvantaged in a non-nuclear family, why would you want to disadvantage them further by enshrining in public policy the notion they are inferior? Being disabled isn't "ideal" either but we don't give those who aren't disabled extra privileges to make the point.

All this wrangling over hierarchies just obscures the common ground. Almost everyone would agree that committed relationships are good and that both parents should be involved in nurturing and providing for their children.

Of course that happens in traditional marriages, although by no means always. It happens in de facto relationships, too. And with the many divorced couples who put their children first. And with same-sex couples.

As Willie Brown, Mayor of San Francisco, once said: "You would think that those who are always talking about family values would want to create an environment of permanent relationships for people of the same sex. But they're not advocating family values. They're advocating their values."

Good family values can be reinforced whatever the form of the family. More importantly, the things that put a strain on the sort of commitment needed to raise children, whoever is doing it, can be addressed.

Four weeks holiday a year is a good start. Income-splitting for tax relief would be better. But shouldn't that apply to, say, grandparents who are caring for children because of family tragedy or dysfunction as well as the traditional married couple?

Of course you can define anything too loosely to be of any use. Fair enough to point out that "a significant psychological attachment" could cover anything from grannies to gangs.

But an inclusive approach simply acknowledges reality. The family I live in started as two adults with a child each. A reconstituted family, a psychologist friend described us, undergoing a process of recalibration. We ventured into nuclear territory by having another child - his, hers and ours.

Our children aren't full siblings in a traditional, nuclear sense but they have always been mystified when anyone suggests that should make the slightest difference.