Do we really need to be subject to this kind of sophomore, under-written cultural criticism? Content lite catty snark has its place, but this is a meandering, confused stream of words trying to rehabilitate the so called nuclear family, and have a bunch of shallow jabs at multiculturalism and feminism. I could care less about the jaded and moribund political opinions of the writer. But at least argue your point coherently!

Where's the data on family composition and relationship? Where is any sign that the author is informed about these issues and can marshal empirical facts to support their contentions? Pathetic.

For the record, the golden age of television is right now. Discerning modern audiences are currently watching and savouring brilliant shows such as The Wire, Mad Men, Breaking Bad, Deadwood and The Sopranos, for just a few examples from recent years. How anyone could think that such rich, complex and multifaceted shows, which fully explore the highs and lows of the human condition, without pulling punches, to some incredibly twee and outmoded family drama taken from the 1950s is beyond explanation.

One cannot help but pity Mr Terpstra for being completely out of touch

Leave It To Beaver "personified" the One Dimensional Man which was the then ruling example of what a "normal" USA human family was supposed to be like. The always smiling happy nuclear family.

A TV version of a Norman Rockwell painting of the USA as a land of never-ending sweetness and light. No hint of death or anything negative. No anger or strong emotions. No paradox, ambiguity, and certainly nothing whatsoever to do with sexuality and/or naked bodies.

Were there ever any African-Americans to be seen?

The world of father knows best. Never mind that father didnt know anything at all. He even had the surname CLEAVER, as in meat-axe.

Never mind too that it all occurred during the time of the nuclear arms race and the Korean war in which much of Korea was reduced to dust. A time of lurking apocalyptic terror during which school children had their daily nuclear air-raid drill, during which they huddled under their desks for "protection".

Exactly the nostalgic "world"-view that John Howard "lived" and pitched to. As does Kevin Rudd to some degree too.

Bboy

I am supposed to take this article seriously? I thought it was satire. I mean just do a sex reversal on the following quotes from Terpstra:

<< For years - decades in fact - the Cleavers were targets of MIDDLE-AGED MASCULINISTS. >>

<< “Bye, DAD I love you, and I’ll clean up my room later,” does he sound MISANDRIST? >>

<< SHE could have been talking about humourless MASCULINISTS >>

<< It is sad that a self-styled situational comedy is attacked by elitists, from politicians to sourpuss MASCULINISTS >>

And could someone please explain the comparison of the Beaver (snorkle, giggle) Family to cannibals? Did I miss some vital piece of education that there is some vital correlation between nuclear families and cannibals (like cannibals are everywhere, aren't they?).

<< For one thing, they were better role models than Papua New Guinea’s cannibals >>

Yes, Ben, I think 99.9% of the world's families (past, present, real and imagined) are probably better role models than cannibals, New Guinea ones or otherwise. This is when I thought the article just HAD to be satire. Because if it isn't satire, just WTF is it?

Another tale from another Liberal idiot,stick to your blog old son, your a bit of a failure unless your talking to the converted,mind you runner and the RWDB will love you,I think your just a fool

“I am supposed to take this article seriously? I thought it was satire.”

I take your point that it really is that bad that it automatically approaches satire. But it’s not nearly so clever or nimble to be an ideological spoof like you’d read at The Onion. Unfortunately there are reactionaries on the right who really are this batty. Also, going by the past articles he's written about Sarah Palin’s contribution to girl power, etc., it’s pretty clear there's a real reactionary agenda.

“And could someone please explain the comparison of the Beaver (snorkle, giggle) Family to cannibals? Did I miss some vital piece of education that there is some vital correlation between nuclear families and cannibals (like cannibals are everywhere, aren't they?).”

Yes, that’s one of the most glaring and bizarre non-sequiturs in a truly undeserving article. It’s a shame actually, because I’m sure somebody with a bit more wit and insight could have had a lot of fun with this, and made a couple of points along the way.