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.

I agree - this is one of the silliest articles I've read at OLO in ages.

I also agree that the bit about "New Guinea cannibals" was a non sequitur, not to mention quite bizarre.

BBoy

Thank you for your response. I thought about reading some of Terpstra's previous articles - however, I value my time, I'm not getting any younger, decided I had better things to do. This current piece of work could've been something very clever and humorous - an Onion style work as you said.

I guess that means Terpstra was serious when he said:

<< But sadder still, is the fact that a series from the 1950s ends up looking far more realistic than most dramas you’ll find on TV anyway. >>

I think of current series like Weeds, Breaking Bad, Sopranos, Six Feet Under about people coping with the circumstances in which they find themselves in a variety of successful and unsuccessful ways - much as we muddle along in life. I doubt that even in the 50's there existed the squeaky Lux-soap clean and plastic family like the Cleavers. If that is Terpstra's reality, then every new day in 2010 must be a major shock. Poor man.

Beaver reminds me of this.

http://www.redbubble.com/people/bronek/art/393697-6-dinner-time

Here we go again. Another prat fascist raving on about "the good old days" and how it was all better when we had better "family values".

What exactly are they talking about? What are these "good ole fashioned family values"? Well basically what they are talking about is the dominance of men over women and children. A keep em in their place mentality. A "woman's place is in the home mentality". A children should be seen not heard mentality. A man is the MASTER in his own home mentality. The fact that this makes his wife and children his slaves seems to escape the tories of this world. Or does it?

Is it just blinkered ideology? Is it a ploy to keep oppressed workers happy by allowing them to have their own slaves? Is it a wish to increase the power they wield over their own families? Is it just a fear of change? All of the above? Who knows? All I know is that I had an authoritarian father and it was a pretty scary, painful childhood devoid of love but filled with hate. I would not wish that on any child.

They seek a revival of the patriarchal system responsible for the subjugation of women and the abuse of children. When men see women and children as property the results are horrendous injustice and harm. We all know the results of little boys growing up with an abusive father, they just become an abuser themselves. Young girls have been caused untold grief and pain thanks to fathers who see their daughters as lesser beings and available to satisfy their perversions. So how come the powerful and loud rightwingers want to see a return to this system?

continued

continued

Patriarchy = Authoritarianism and anyone who calls for a return of ancient family ways deserves to be viewed with suspicion as an authoritarian and an oppressor. The religious zealots would have us believe that the man on top is the natural way of all things but as at least half of the worlds population know, this is a load of bollocks. Men having power over anybody, let alone their families, only leads to oppression, violence, rape and hatred.

The only reason that crime figures where lower in "the good old days" where that so many men (the overwhelming majority of criminals) got away with their crimes. Crimes like drunkenly bashing the wife, like assaulting children and raping and molesting of their own daughters and wives. This is the result of right wing "family values". This is the result of patriarchy!

"So called" family values must not be allowed to poison our society and return us to the dark ages of domination and oppression by undeserving and uncaring authoritarians who are the abusers of women and children and the destroyers of freedom for over half of the population.

Patriarchy = The Dark Ages
Equality = Progress

Mikk

Doubtless there are those who wish to return to the "good old days" when "men were men" and women "knew their place" and children were "seen but not heard".

However, Terpstra's article ain't gonna do it. If anything, he unintentionally reveals what a farcical impossibility the ideal 50's family was. The only place the Cleavers ever existed was on American television. Even after men returned from WW2 and replaced women in the workforce, many women continued paid work, not all men were authoritarian monsters, nor did families only produce male children (joke on "perfection" of Cleaver family).

Anyone taking Terpstra's article as gospel and the "way things should be" is an anachronism lurching, ranting and raving towards inevitable extinction. Simply because women won't tolerate that B/S anymore and most men don't want a doormat for a partner. Times change, Terpstra pines for an era that never really existed.

A more accurate slice of 50's/early 60's is depicted in the series "Madmen". So much for Terpstra's "reality".

I think this article was so bad (despite, as BBoy said, a decent writer could have actually done something funny) I think I'll just reply in point form:

-Worst, most faulty writing style ever- not even the most Tabloid writers, nor even the World-Socialist-Website authors can even touch this one. No quotes necessary it's the WHOLE article.

-Taking some sitcom or drama SO seriously to try to paint an ideal family (implying in real life)?

In short, TV is changing due to competition from the internet by simultaneously aiming higher with more intelligent or refined TV shows for more refined or abstract audience markets than previously detectable by yesteryear's marketers in order to keep people interested in television, or in other cases massively dumbing down to capitalise on the audiences too stupid to use a browser.

Because most people aren't forced to sit and watch the garbage of yesteryear if they had no other hobbies to do at home, TV now simply gives something for more particular tastes, to choose as they will.