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
The spectrum generated (b) is a family of peaks, with each successive peak
stages of the family cycle
Should society strive to achieve equality in the family?
For Your Consideration: If you had been reared in an Amish family, how would your ideas, attitudes, ...
Typical life cycle of the tick family.
Mechanisms of negative control of transcription