The family resembling capitalism is a bad thing. In capitalism, most relationships are at the core, only based on what Person A can get from Person B (although I wouldn't say every relationship is this way).
Under capitalism (as we see in society today) women have pretty much just become objects used to reproduce (like it's almost always been in just about every society); for the lower and middle class, to create future workers for the upper class; for the upper class, to create future "leaders". This is why cultural institutions like religion and ethics, etc. are incorporated into politics so much, and heterosexual relationships are emphasized while homosexual relationships are discouraged. Gays can't make more workers.
The male's role in society is (traditionally) to use other men to improve himself economically, to make himself a better candidate for raising children.
Children are pretty much supposed to be molded into what society wants them to be. They learn (or are supposed to) learn traits from their parents so they will function the same way when the grow up. That's why there is an emphasis placed on obedience to superiors, following directions, not questioning, etc. But obviously, the natural response of children is to rebel.
(These are all general explanations, excluding love, romance, etc.)
The role of the family (and just about every other interaction) in a capitalist society is closely related, if not solely based on, Social Darwinism.
Peace
Negative control of an inducible set of genes: function of the lac repressor in regulating the lac o
Gianlorenzo Bernini, The Cornaro Family in a Theater Box.
Candidates for jobs are sometimes rejected when the prospective employer finds negative images or ...
There is no such thing as the African American family, any more than there is the Native American, ...
The family described in Example Case 2
Evolution of the vertebrate SR gene family