What is the typical Irish Family? Britain = Two single mothers, one heavily pregnant.

Lapin

Roma and Emma Jones and their sons typify the ordinary British family of 2014 according to sculptor Gillian Wearing commisioned to create a piece of art with the title.

The sculpture


Full article from The Guardian

"On Wednesday, the Turner Prize-winning artist Gillian Wearing invited Birmingham’s citizens to celebrate A Real Birmingham Family. The bronze sculpture, situated outside the city’s library, honours what curator Stuart Tulloch calls the “everyday and unsung”. The image of the prosaic-sounding Joneses doesn’t take us nostalgically back to the 1950s. Thankfully, it isn’t a white picket-fence rendition of family as singularly nuclear. Instead, we are yanked forward into the 21st century. Wearing presents a family that is, shock horror, two single mothers, one heavily pregnant, proudly striding forward, holding on to their sons. It is an emotive and commanding work of art. But apparently that’s the rabid feminist in me speaking, because for many commenting on the sculpture, it typifies all that is wrong with our society."


While I wouldn't go as far as saying the artists work typifies all that is wrong with society, I certainly wouldn't agree with the above writer's view that we should be thankful that this is how families are regarded now.

Call me old fashioned but I still regard the traditional concept of the nuclear family of children being raised by a male father and female mother ar the only model society should aspire to.

I think the sculpture itself is quite a beautiful piece of work, although the lack of a father figure in a depiction of an 'ordinary family' is both disappointing and wrong, and perpetuates an idea held by some that men have no role to play in the raising of children.

So if you were asked to create a sculpture depicting the typical Irish family of 2014, how would it look? What is the ordinary Irish family now and how is it set to change even further in the coming years. For better of for worse, the introduction of gay marriage, if we vote in favour of it will inevitably impact on the traditional perception of the family even further.

Perhaps statues like the one in Birmingham, representing the families of the future won't feature two sisters as single mothers playing the adult role, but two mothers married to each other.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

They said a "real" family not "normal" nor "typical". But carry on.

Turtyturd

You're old fashioned OP.

Lapin

Miranda Abundant Viewfinder wrote: »

They said a "real" family not "normal" nor "typical". But carry on.

Do you have an opinion on the post or did you just come here to misquote me?

Pwindedd

A "real" family is made up of individuals that care for, protect and love each other. Gender and sexual orientation are completely irrelevant in my book.

Iranoutofideas

Were they depicted wearing their indoor or outdoor pajamas?

c_man

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the typical Irish family is comprised of a dad, mum and kids. Not very exciting but there you go.

donvito99

Daily Mail headline:

FEMALE ARTIST HONOURS TEENAGE LESBIAN (POSSIBLY MUSLIM, ISIS?) SINGLE PARENTS ON BENEFITS IN BIRMINGHAM SCULPTURE - COMRADE MILIBAND TAKES NOTE - UKIP'S FARAGE: "BRUSSELS AT IT AGAIN" - ALSO, RYANAIR FLY TO BIRMINGHAM

SparkySpitfire

Lapin wrote: »

Call me old fashioned but I still regard the traditional concept of the nuclear family of children being raised by a male father and female mother ar the only model society should aspire to.

I think the sculpture itself is quite a beautiful piece of work, although the lack of a father figure in a depiction of an 'ordinary family' is both disappointing and wrong, and perpetuates an idea held by some that men have no role to play in the raising of children..

You're old fashioned OP.

The nuclear family isn't this pristine model that we should all be in awe of. Children can get a perfectly good upbringing in a variety of situations. That includes in an all-female environment, all male or mixed.

The one thing every single family (whatever the makeup) should aspire to is love.

Lapin

SparkySpitfire wrote: »

The nuclear family isn't this pristine model that we should all be in awe of.

True, but I don't think we should be thankul to see it downplayed either as the Okolosie seems to suggest in her piece.

worded

normal family - see attached

SparkySpitfire

Lapin wrote: »

True, but I don't think we should be thankul to see it downplayed either as the Okolosie seems to suggest in her piece.

Don't think of it as being downplayed, think about it as making room for all the other types of families.

Instead of one picture of family life, we now have loads!! This should be celebrated. Family is one of the most precious things we have, in all of its forms, none is better than the other in my opinion.

Iwasfrozen

Does anyone else think they look like a lesbian couple with two kids?

Pumpkinseeds

Maybe they've moved in together to avoid the spare bedroom tax. That and maybe chicken nuggets get cheaper if they're bought in bulk, don't single mothers basically just feed their kids chicken nuggets and chips every day or is that just an urban legend.(kidding):D

The Backwards Man

Why is it that the models in sculptures are never looking where they going? They just stare into empty space.

Completely ruins the enjoyment for me.

RDM_83 again

SparkySpitfire wrote: »

You're old fashioned OP.

The nuclear family isn't this pristine model that we should all be in awe of. Children can get a perfectly good upbringing in a variety of situations. That includes in an all-female environment, all male or mixed.

The one thing every single family (whatever the makeup) should aspire to is love.

While thats self evidently true, isn't it important for a child to have a positive role-model of the opposite gender? While I would never think that a single parent or same sex couple are "worse" perhaps it would be safe to say there is potentially more difficulty in that regard.
Whats remarkable isn't the family unit portrayed but the absence of the male from the picture e.g Uncles, close family friends that sort of thing.

indigo twist

Lapin wrote: »

Do you have an opinion on the post or did you just come here to misquote me?

Your thread title clearly implies that this is a depiction of a "typical" family ... Whereas the article makes it clear that the art is supposed to be a depiction of a REAL family - not necessarily a typical family.

Lapin

indigo twist wrote: »

Your thread title clearly implies that this is a depiction of a "typical" family ... Whereas the article makes it clear that the art is supposed to be a depiction of a REAL family - not necessarily a typical family.

I was misquoted as using the word 'normal' in my OP (presumably to describe the traditional family). I never used the word anywhere in my post nor would I.

Of course the sculpture is of a real family. Thats obvious and I mention their name in the opening sentence of my opening post.

But the artist obviously sees the Jonses as a typical representation of the modern British family. Perhaps they are. I don't have a problem with that.
She was commisioned to carry out the work following her creation of a similar piece in Trento, Italy six years ago in which she sculpted the 'Typical Italian Family' which featured a mother, father and two children.

I do however, take issue with the reporter's suggestion that we should be thankful that this is what families have evolved as now and her closing remarks that this is something to be grateful for.

Nodin

Lapin wrote: »

I was misquoted as using the word 'normal' in my OP (presumably to describe the traditional family). I never used the word anywhere in my post nor would I.

Of course the sculpture is of a real family. Thats obvious and I mention their name in the opening sentence of my opening post.

But the artist obviously sees the Jonses as a typical representation of the modern British family. Perhaps they are. I don't have a problem with that.
She was commisioned to carry out the work following her creation of a similar piece in Trento, Italy six years ago in which she sculpted the 'Typical Italian Family' which featured a mother, father and two children.

I do however, take issue with the reporter's suggestion that we should be thankful that this is what families have evolved as now and her closing remarks that this is something to be grateful for.

Families were always thus, its just out in the open now. I'd suggest coming to terms with it.

Lapin

Nodin wrote: »

Families were always thus, its just out in the open now. I'd suggest coming to terms with it.

Would you fuck off with this insulting crap and try having a discussion sometime without making snide judgements on people.

SparkySpitfire

RDM_83 again wrote: »

While thats self evidently true, isn't it important for a child to have a positive role-model of the opposite gender? While I would never think that a single parent or same sex couple are "worse" perhaps it would be safe to say there is potentially more difficulty in that regard.
Whats remarkable isn't the family unit portrayed but the absence of the male from the picture e.g Uncles, close family friends that sort of thing.

Positive role models of any gender are available to children outside of the immediate family unit as well as inside. This would include grandparents, aunts, uncles, teachers etc.

Perhaps they were excluded because this is a sculpture of the immediate family circle. That doesn't mean that the children don't have a wider network of other role models and care takers available to them.

Also I do remember reading in researching an essay on Irish crime that it was better to have an absent father or mother than a present one that was a negative influence. Also it was better to be raised by one parent than two that had the house in discord from arguing etc. This is interesting.

the evasion_kid

There's a fairly newish estate were I live that I suppose you would class "father free" walking by it everyday I can already see what its going to degenerate into.

Lapin

SparkySpitfire wrote: »

Perhaps they were excluded because this is a sculpture of the immediate family circle. That doesn't mean that the fictional children don't have a wider network of other role models and care takers available to them.

They're not fictional though.

SparkySpitfire

Lapin wrote: »

They're not fictional though.

Ah sorry, well then I'll edit that. The point still stands though.

Lapin

SparkySpitfire wrote: »

The point still stands though.

Its a fair point but I still believe that role models outside the home can never be a substitute for parents within a family.

And obviously its true that a loving environment is better than a hostile one regardless of the numbers, but this is often put forward by those defending single parent families as though hostile relationships are the norm and only other alternative.

Obviously all couples argue from time to time, but this doesnn't mean they're at each other's throats in front of the kids day in day out.

Nodin

Lapin wrote: »

Would you fuck off with this insulting crap and try having a discussion sometime without making snide judgements on people.

I'm not judging, I'm going on your OP ie

"Call me old fashioned but I still regard the traditional concept of the nuclear family of children being raised by a male father and female mother ar the only model society should aspire to. "

"although the lack of a father figure in a depiction of an 'ordinary family' is both disappointing and wrong"

Iwasfrozen

Nodin wrote: »

I'm not judging, I'm going on your OP ie

"Call me old fashioned but I still regard the traditional concept of the nuclear family of children being raised by a male father and female mother ar the only model society should aspire to. "

"although the lack of a father figure in a depiction of an 'ordinary family' is both disappointing and wrong"

Sounds like he has come to terms with it he just believes the nuclear family is what society should aspire to? Fari enough, no?

RDM_83 again

SparkySpitfire wrote: »

Positive role models of any gender are available to children outside of the immediate family unit as well as inside. This would include grandparents, aunts, uncles, teachers etc.

Thats why i mentioned them in my post :cool:

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Uncles, close family friends that sort of thing.

SparkySpitfire wrote: »

Perhaps they were excluded because this is a sculpture of the immediate family circle. That doesn't mean that the children don't have a wider network of other role models and care takers available to them.

Thats all very nice to say but its not actually a sculpture of an immediate family circle though is it? This isn't a sculpture of a Lesbian couple, from my take of the article its of people who support each other but aren't attached in anyway, therefore its valid to wonder, why is there the absence of the adult male from the image?
Edit:They are immediate family being sisters but not a couple, but that begs the question, brothers, uncles, fathers (both their own and the childrens)

SparkySpitfire wrote: »

Also I do remember reading in researching an essay on Irish crime that it was better to have an absent father or mother than a present one that was a negative influence. Also it was better to be raised by one parent than two that had the house in discord from arguing etc. This is interesting.

Any chance of a link for curiosities sake, I can understand why this could be the case but I'd be curious how they would measure "negative influence"

Nodin

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Sounds like he has come to terms with it he just believes the nuclear family is what society should aspire to? Fari enough, no?

When you add the mention of the lack of a father figure being "disappointing and wrong", there seems to be a bit more than that.

Lapin

Nodin wrote: »

I'm not judging, I'm going on your OP ie

"Call me old fashioned but I still regard the traditional concept of the nuclear family of children being raised by a male father and female mother ar the only model society should aspire to. "

"although the lack of a father figure in a depiction of an 'ordinary family' is both disappointing and wrong"

And where in either of those comments does it suggest that I haven't 'come to terms' with any other type of arrangement?

It was a personal smart arsed remark and there is no place for that crap here.

eviltwin

Nodin wrote: »

When you add the mention of the lack of a father figure being "disappointing and wrong", there seems to be a bit more than that.

It is disappointing and wrong though. Call me old fashioned but I believe parents should be in their child's lives. That doesn't mean they need to be in a relationship with the other parent but they should be there for their offspring. Obviously I'm talking about situations where that is possible. Its horrible to think there are kids out there who have never met their dads.