India Knight has written a thought-provoking column about families called ‘Britain plays unhappy families’. Knight is a novelist and a regular columnist for The Sunday Times. I have put part of the column below and you can read the rest at Timesonline.
“The problem with political parties lazily banging on about “the family” all the time, as though the nuclear model were the remedy for all society’s ills, is that anyone even slightly observant can’t have failed to notice that the traditional family is in dire straits.
I’m all for families, and for children being brought up in secure, loving environments – who isn’t? – but I get tremendously irritated when it is suggested, as it so often is, that having two parents under the same roof somehow magically guarantees a Janet and John kind of childhood, free of risk or trauma, and that having just the one parent is a recipe for impending hoodie-druggie-gun disaster.
It’s such a load of guff. What actually matters, to children and adults alike, is having happy, contented parents whose felicity communicates itself to their children. Whether the happy parents are happy together or happier separated, and whether the family is the 2.3 version or a more seemingly chaotic model filled with steps and halves and honorary aunties, seems to me completely irrelevant. It’s simple: a happy parent makes for a happy child, and a miserable one communicates misery to his or her offspring – not just occasionally, but for decades on end.
My theory has met with some resistance in the past, though goodness knows why (actually I do know why: it’s because unhappily married people are incredibly defensive). But anyway, I knew I was right, and a survey of married couples last week backs me right up. An amazing 59% of married women said they would leave their husbands tomorrow if they could be assured of economic stability. Half of the husbands questioned defined their marriage as “loveless”.
More than 10% of men and women said they wished they had married someone else; 12% said they would stay in an unhappy relationship for an easy life; 30% said they were staying in a doomed marriage to save themselves the hassle of an upheaval; 37% said they were staying put for the sake of the children; 42% worried about losing their home if they broke up; a third of those polled were worried they would be left with nothing if they walked away; and 30% of men said they were scared of leaving their children behind.”
scholarship@cc 
1a) The central idea discussed was mainly that of the importance of happy parents (married or not) for the sake of children; and also the idea of unhappy women staying in unhappy marriages because they cannot support themselves alone.
b) Quotes
“What actually matters, to children and adults alike, is having happy, contented parents whose felicity communicates itself to their children.”
“If women want to be free it is crucial they earn their own money. Marrying a high-earning man may look like a sinecure on the outside… but it’s no guarantee of anything: it leaves women in the most precarious and vulnerable position imaginable.”
2.Hyperbole; “having just the one parent is a recipe for impending hoodie-druggie-gun disaster.” emphasises the mis-conception that solo-parents doom the future of their children and can’t provide loving environments.
Listed statistics; “More than 10% of men and women said they wished they had married someone else; 12% said they would stay in an unhappy relationship for an easy life; 30% said…” provides factual infromation and shocks the reader, causes them to perhaps think about what their own answers would be.(gets them thinking)
Colloquial language; “load of guff”, “freaks”, “blather” creates informal, relaxed mood between writer and reader; helps reader to relate to the writer.
Statement; “It’s simple: a happy parent makes for a happy child, and a miserable one communicates misery to his or her offspring..” is provocative and presents the writers point of veiw in a summative way. Also introduces ideas.
Rhetorical Question; “I’m all for families, and for children being brought up in secure, loving environments – who isn’t?” presents writers opinion early and provokes reader to agree with her. Indicates that of course everyone wants children to feel loved and secure.
This is an excellent response Rachel. You show clear understanding of the main ideas and back up your points with excellent support. You picked effective language features abd explained them well. 🙂
1) The main issue is that of how many parents are only in their marrige for the money or their children – and that most of them are unhappily married.
b) “An amazing 59% of married women said they would leave their husbands tomorrow if they could be assured of economic stability”
“It’s simple: a happy parent makes for a happy child, and a miserable one communicates misery to his or her offspring – not just occasionally, but for decades on end”
2) a) Facts listed by the writer “12% said they would stay in an unhappy relationship for an easy life; 30% said …” – Writer uses this to grab the readers attention and makes them think about what their situation is.
b) Rhetorical Question – “I’m all for families, and for children being brought up in secure, loving environments – who isn’t?” – Keeps the reader interested and makes them feel like the writer is involving them
c) Hyperbole – “…anyone even slightly observant can’t have failed to notice that the traditional family is in dire straits” – accentuates the fact that families are not what they used to be…Even if they have 2 parents under one roof.
Thank you Jamie. A very clear comment with excellent support. 🙂
In this column, the central idea discussed by India Knight is her opinion that when raising happy and successful children, it is more important to have one happy parent rather than two unhappy parents living under the same roof. The reason behind this is a consequence of her other central idea: that unhappy couples are only staying together “for the sake of the children” and for financial security.
“I get tremendously irritated when it is suggested, as it so often is, that having two parents under the same roof somehow magically guarantees a Janet and John kind of childhood, free of risk or trauma, and that having just the one parent is a recipe for impending hoodie-druggie-gun disaster.”
“An amazing 59% of married women said they would leave their husbands tomorrow if they could be assured of economic stability.”
• Sarcasm – “My theory has met with some resistance in the past, though goodness knows why (actually I do know why:” emphasises the obvious reluctance of many parents to get out of unhappy relationships.
• Factual statements – “More than 10% of men and women said they wished they had married someone else…” helps the reader to understand the importance of the issue and causes them to think about their own relationship.
• Personal pronouns – “I knew I was right”. Shows that the column is opinionated and gets the reader analysing the ideas behind the issue more than if it straight facts and boring statements about that issue. They think there must be a reason behind the column and the writer actually feels strongly about the topic.
• Rhetorical question – I’m all for families, and for children being brought up in secure, loving environments – who isn’t? once again shows the column is opinionated and causes the reader to actually think about the issue.
An excellent comment Craig. Clear understanding demonstrated with detailed textual support. Well done! 🙂
1. (a) What are central ideas discussed in the column?
(b) Select two quotes from the column that show these ideas.
2. Identify five examples of interesting language features and explain their effect.
The central idea that is discussed in this column is that children can be given a loving and supportive upbringing without having to have the traditional family where the parents are ‘happily’ married. A single parent can provide the caring environment that a young child needs despite some beliefs that they cannot. It is more important that the parents are happy rather than that they are together.
Quotes:
‘What actually matters, to children and adults alike, is having happy, contented parents whose felicity communicates itself to their children.’
‘It’s simple: a happy parent makes for a happy child, and a miserable one communicates misery to his or her offspring’
Five interesting language techniques are:
Statements: this is convincing for the reader. The points are clear and simple and we can understand them easily.
Rhetorical questions: These encourage the reader to consider her points and form their own opinion on the issue.
Statistics: Readers tend to believe facts, figures and numbers that they see and it gives them a clear understanding of the reality of the issue and its relevance to society.
Serious tone: This encourages the reader to take the writer seriously. We can see that she is a reasonably normal person and we are more likely to trust her. She is not jumping to extremes but bringing up good points to be considered.
Conversational: The use of words such as ‘anyway’ make us think of the writer as simpy a normal person and feel we can also trust her better. We feel like she is talking to us rather than lecturing to us or inforcing opinions on us… this makes us more likely to listen to her and keep and open mind to her ideas.
Thanks Vanessa, good discussion of the column’s ideas. 🙂