jump to last post 1-3 of 3 discussions (10 posts)

Kids From Large Families FARE Worse

  1. gmwilliams profile image86
    gmwilliamsposted 2 years ago

    Childlren from large families oftentimes fare worse than their counterparts from small families in terms of socioeconomics, health care, and particularly academic achievement.

    Here are the links:
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … lings.html
    http://www.apnewsarchive.com/1985/Child … aadf4339d7
    http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpresseboo … nd=ucpress

    1. Quilligrapher profile image90
      Quilligrapherposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Hi, Grace. How nice to encounter this newest thread.

      Your supported assumptions are rigid and unqualified. They run contrary to research that has been mostly inconsistent and inconclusive. Very narrow studies produce consistent results that are not confirmed when the demographics and economic development factors are varied.

      “Taken together, the existing evidence from developed and developing nations suggests that there is no axiomatic relationship between family size and children’s schooling.” {1}{2}

      Your claims are not universal in application. The number of siblings does not necessarily handicap children in a large family unit. This is a myth, a faulty contention, only valid in the most advanced societies where education costs are rather high. In other settings, the economic potential of each child is often enhanced by the support system available from siblings. Furthermore, academic achievement is promoted by domestic competitiveness.

      If you do not respect academic research, then let us look to the real world for real examples:

      Celine Dion is the youngest of 14 children.

      Perry Como was the seventh of 13 children.

      Motivational speaker Hilary Hinton "Zig" Ziglar was born the 10th of 12 children.

      The family of Frank Bunker Gilbreth, Sr. consisted of 12 children two of whom wrote the book “Cheaper by the Dozen.”

      Being the sixth of eleven children did not noticeably diminish the potential of Margaret Sanger.

      Stephen Colbert did not lose his sense of humor because he was the youngest of 11 siblings.

      Country superstar Dolly Parton has 11 siblings and an amusement park bearing her name.

      Mark Wahlberg grew up as the youngest of nine children and has three additional half-siblings. A large family and brushes with the law seem to have made him a stronger person.

      Mel Gibson was born the sixth of eleven children.

      Founding Father Ben Franklin was one of ten children born to Josiah Franklin with his second wife Abiah Folger. Ole Ben had ten half siblings born to his father’s first wife. Ben’s older brother was the publisher of the New England Courant and Ben taught his sister to read and write.

      Actor Martin Sheen, born Ramón Antonio Gerardo Estévez, grew up as the seventh of 10 children.

      Heavyweight champion Evander Holyfield was the youngest of nine children and he now has 11 children of his own suggesting he has broad shoulders and a big heart.

      Donny and Marie Osmond were two of nine children. Marie has eight children.

      President John F. Kennedy did not do badly. He had three brothers and five sisters.

      William Shakespeare was one of eight children and the world is still quoting him.

      Actor Bill Murray has eight siblings, six children, and a sterling career.

      Harry Lillis "Bing" Crosby was the fourth of seven children. If he had more brothers and sisters, Grace, you think he might have lost his voice?

      Actor James Cagney was the second of seven children.

      Michael and Janet Jackson grew up with seven other siblings.

      Actor Chris O'Donnell is the youngest of seven children and has five of his own.

      Actor Alexander Rae "Alec" Baldwin is the eldest of six children.

      Conan O'Brien is the third of six children

      Superstar Madonna has five siblings and two half-siblings.

      Kim Kardasian has three siblings, two half-sisters and two stepbrothers.

      George Foreman grew up with six siblings. He has 12 children of his own. Five are named George and one is Georgetta.

      Caterina di Giacomo di Benincasa was one of 25 children. Half of them died before she was born. If you had it your way in the Republic of Siena in the year 1437, Grace, you might have deprived the world of St. Catherine of Sienna including her respected spiritual writings and her political boldness so extraordinary for her time.

      Finally, your hypothesis is flawed and in dire need of supporting evidence before it can considered a viable theory. 

      A great thread, Grace. Thanks for the mental stimulation.
      {1} http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2831397/
      {2} Thornton, A., The developmental paradigm, reading history sideways, and family change. Demography. 2001 Nov; 38(4):449-65.

      1. gmwilliams profile image86
        gmwilliamsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        What you have mentioned are rarities, one in a millions.   Those from large families who are high achievers and success stories are very, very few.  The majority of those from large families do not finish school as many have to drop out to help their families socioeconomically.   It is quite common in large families that only a small percentage of children from that particular family to succeed while the rest remain in poverty. 

        For example, the Wahlberg family, most of the siblings are not successful.  Mark Wahlberg in the reality show the Wahlburgers inidicated that one of the brothers, a chef, one of the younger children, was the first one in the family to finish high school.   Again, nice try.    In large families, the majority of the siblings DO NOT succeed, only a minute percentage of the siblings DO succeed and reach their potential.  It has been proven and substantiated that children from small families(1-2 children per household) have a more likelihood of socioeconomic and educationa achievement as opposed to children from large families(6 or more children per household).

        1. Sed-me profile image82
          Sed-meposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Speaking of Margaret Sanger, I think you and she might have something in common. It is reported her aim was to wipe out the African American community, which she deemed "unfit". What is your aim?

          Woman and the New Race, ch. 6: “The Wickedness of Creating Large Families.” Here, Sanger argues that, because the conditions of large families tend to involve poverty and illness, it is better for everyone involved if a child’s life is snuffed out before he or she has a chance to pose difficulties to its family. http://www.lifenews.com/2013/03/11/10-e … et-sanger/

          "And Sanger advocated birth control backed up by forced sterilization or segregation to achieve her aims, writing, “While I personally believe in the sterilization of the feeble-minded, the insane and syphilitic, I have not been able to discover that these measures are more than superficial deterrents when applied to the constantly growing stream of the unfit. They are excellent means of meeting a certain phase of the situation, but I believe in regard to these, as in regard to other eugenic means, that they do not go to the bottom of the matter.” The bottom of the matter was “to create a race of thoroughbreds.” So the government, Sanger concluded, needed “to apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring” and “to give certain dysgenic groups in our population their choice of segregation or sterilization.”

          In her 1920 book, Woman and the New Race, Sanger wrote that birth control “is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defectives.”
          http://liveaction.org/research/margaret … -biography

          1. gmwilliams profile image86
            gmwilliamsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            My aim is for smaller families, preferably 1-2 children or perhaps 3-4 children born into socioeconomically comfortable, NOT IMPOVERISHED homes so that children can have every opportunity for self, educational, and socioeconomic development possible.  If I had MY way, no child would be born into poverty or poor socioeconomic circumstances but into middle class or better socioeconomic circumstances and no parents would have more than 4 children so that each child would be properly parented by the parents and not have the oldest/older children be parentified children thus missing out on their own childhoods and adolescence.  Yes, large families are egregious and abusive to the children, particularly oldest/older children who have to bear the brunt of the childrearing responsibilities e.g. the Duggars.

            1. Sed-me profile image82
              Sed-meposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Well, then sterilization should nip that one in the bud.

  2. calculus-geometry profile image86
    calculus-geometryposted 2 years ago
  3. gmwilliams profile image86
    gmwilliamsposted 2 years ago

    Nice to see you again, Calculus.

    1. calculus-geometry profile image86
      calculus-geometryposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Just as dose makes the poison, so too does frequency make the troll.

      1. Sed-me profile image82
        Sed-meposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        You so deep.