(6 or more children per household) in the postmodern, 21st century United States, being fully cognizant of the fact that they will be subjecting their children to an extremely rudimentary and primitive socioeconomic living standard, even socioeconomic penury and poverty? Countless studies have shown that there is a strong correlation of large/very large families and poverty. The average large/very large family is in the lower socioeconomic classes.
In large/very large family household, there is very little monies allocated for basic necessities, even that. that. Anything beyond the bare basic necessities is unknown and unheard of in large/very large families. large families. Children in large/very large families consume inferior quality of food as better quality food is expensive. Also foods such as meat and fish are unheard of in many large families. It is not unusual for children in large/very large families to go to bed hungry. Many children from large/very large families must depend upon school food programs to get a decent meal.
Children from large/very large families do not have the proper medical/health/ dental care. There are those who receive NO medical/health/ dental care. If it were for school health programs, these children would not receive health care. They must often do without, even the rudiments. They do not have the things that other children have. They wear castoff, throwaway, and secondhand clothing which is of inferior quality.
Typical children from a large/very large families must work, sometimes from childhood, to get the extras or to assist their parents socioeconomically. The average large/very large family also must depend upon outside donations and/or assistance to keep them socioeonomically afloat. There are many large/very large families that fall below the poverty line.
What makes parents have MORE children that they cannot take care of and provide a high quality of life for? Instead there is a constant and uphill socioeconomic struggle from day to day, ekeing out a subsistent existence, if that. The average parent of large/very large families have children without being concerned about the ramifications of their actions upon their children socioeconoimically. They are not concerned about their children's living conditions and the things that their children need beyond bare existence.
Besides the financial aspect, there is the mental and psychological aspects. Parents of such large families do not and/or are unable to give their children the prerequisite attention needed. Some children are going to be neglected while others will receive care of some type. Oldest/older children will be consigned to parent younger siblings thus forfeiting their formative childhood and adolescent years. In many large/very large families, oldest children will be asked to drop out of school in order to help their parents socioeconmically. Parents who knowingly have more children that THEY can take care and thus subjecting their children to harsh, inhuman conditions can be categorized as thoughtless, selfish, even abusive. What are YOUR thoughts of this?
One family I know decided to have 12 children when they first married. The husband wanted "his own ball team." That was kind of a joke, but after six babies, the mother got cancer and died. The husband remarried and had five more. When the fifth was born, the doctor warned them that another baby would probably kill the mother so they had no more. That made 11 total.
This family is very wealthy, however, and now all the children are grown and - as far as I know - every one of them is educated and successful.
Poor families just don't consider the consequences or they don't have access to birth control.
We should ONLY have the number of children we can care for.
Coincidentally, the latest episode of "Through The Wormhole" looks at poverty and wealth from a genetic view. Apparently, there is evidence to suggest that poverty and wealth are genetic, however even Freeman admits this is not the case with him, considering he grew up in abject poverty but is very wealthy now.
HAHHAHHHHA Im literally laughing out loud as I read this. Go tell Ross Perot that poverty and wealth are genetic. Go tell Russell Anderson that poverty and wealth are genetic.... self made millionaires, multiple times over. Poverty and wealth are directly related to two things....ingenuity and determination...without both of them in place in your life you won't be wealthy. Also...success only happens when opportunity meets preparedness. Many people have the chance to be successful, but they are not, simply because they do not prepare themselves for the opportunity. It has NOTHING to do with genetics...
To digress. I am in total agreement with you there. Poverty and wealth aren't genetic at all but is based upon a particular psychology and mindset. Some poor people are fatalistic, believing that they are not in control with their destiny. They believe that it is the outer society that is holding them back instead of themselves. Affluent people are more proactive regarding their destiny; they MAKE and CONTROL their destiny. Many poor people who become wealthy such as Dr. Wayne Dyer and Oprah Winfrey become proactive regarding as to what they want from their lives. They decided to make opportunities and instead of passively being resigned to a particular fate because of their so-called socioeconomic class.
P.S. Joshua, you can start a thread on poverty and wealth. What you have stated is true. Continue this on a new thread. People love to discuss poverty and wealth. You and I am are the same wavelength there. Poverty and wealth are based upon a mindset. One can be poor today and rich tomorrow and vice versa. Now you're spot on in saying that many people want to be successful but refuse to take the necessary steps to be successful. It is analogous to going to heaven but not wanting to die. One has to make the necessary sacrifices to be successful in this world. One must organize and plan what goals they wish to attain. One also must work smart. Have a nice night, Joshua. I am going to bed now. Continue the discussion.
I think we actually found something we agree on WoW! Who'd a thunk it? LOL
We all have things that we agree and disagree with. NO HARD FEELINGS at all. That is life. I am done with this thread, it is yours and Melissa to do with as you both will. I am now going to the religious forums and observe. Joshua, you will love the religious forums, so full of contention. I usually observe!
I think I shall indeed have to visit the religious forums. However, I will save it for another time. I am about to clock out and go home to my family. I work in a Christian boarding school for at risk teen boys. Incidentally, 80% of these young men in my care come from families of less than 3 children....families that are EXTREMELY well off. Food for thought....
Same children just do not appreciate the opportunities they were given. There has to be more gratitude and less entitlement. Beyond that there may be familial problems and dysfunction. I am glad that you are helping these young men. Children are so precious, we must help them all we can. God bless you and have a Blessed Night! Again, this thread NOW belongs to you, Melissa, and dear Kathryn to do with as you three wish! I AM DONE!
Thank you for your eloquent and analytical response. Many parents who have large/very large families are of a poverty mindset and consciousness. They KNOW that having a large/very large family means socioeconomic impoverishment for their children but that is the LEAST of their concerns. They are seemingly obsessed with reproduction, not caring if their children have a high quality of life which includes the better and high aspects of living instead of subsisting at the most primitve socioeconomic level.
Well, this is my fifth child. I'm curious, if I have another do all my children have begging bowls and dirty faces or just the next one?
What about the dental care and medical care they've had already? Is it just the sixth one that is neglected or is the medical care the others have had retroactively removed? Do they have to give back the fish and meat they've already eaten, or do I just starve the next one to make up for it?
Yes I'm being facetious, but you get the point. Not all large families are starving with the children being rented out to sweat shops.
You are right about the clothing thing though... I do buy at consignment shops. I only wish I could afford the therapy that my children are going to need from having second hand Polo and Baby Gap that is otherwise completely indistinguishable from new.
The average child from large/very large families do not have health care. If it weren't for school sponsored medical program, they would not receive medical or other forms of health care. I remember as a child, in my elementary school, it was the children from large/very large families who went to school doctors for their medical care.
Many children from large/very large families only eat nutririous and health meals only under school programs. Many children from large/very large families do not have sufficient food because there is no monies to feed a lot of children. Two decades ago, there was a progam on DATELINE in which a father of FOURTEEN wondered how he was going to feed his evergrowing family.
Many children from large/very large families who have clothes that are either donated, castoffs and throwaways as they cannot afford to buy better quality clothing. If they are able to purchase clothes, it is oftentimes from run of the mill secondhand stores. Consigment shops are of a higher quality than the latter. Hell, I shop at consignment shops. Got FIVE black velvet dresses and a nice black linen dress that I wear constantly. I donate clothes to consignment shops.
I was not talking about consignment shops but castoff and throwaway clothing of very poor and inferior quality! Many children from large/very large families HAVE NO CHOICE but to wear castoff and throwaway clothing as their parents can ill afford to purchase good clothing. They stick out from the other children because of their inferior clothing. That is all I am saying.
What you are saying is, "Women, protect and safeguard your own internal eggs until you can afford to adequately/properly and willingly take care of them, once they are fertilized/born. It is so darn simple.
If we could get all girls to comprehend the power of creation within them, they might take themselves and their lives more seriously. Thanks for helping to raise awareness. It is exactly what we need. What a great society we would have if all children were conceived with care, concern and awareness.
I agree but what gripes me is a double standard for males and females. My dad taught me in no questionable terms that if I made a baby - that was MY baby. That baby would come before anything else. I thought my kids the same thing.
But we're getting to be a throw away baby society. Mother having half a dozen babies - by various fathers and those fathers sitting in jail a few months of the year for not paying child support.
There really has to be a financial plan in place before couples conceive. Now that the State steps in and feeds the babies, why shouldn't the dads slough off? No one taught them that fatherhood was important and they're teaching their kids the same thing by not being in the picture.
My sister used to say that in order to get welfare help of any sort - a man or a woman should have to submit to chemical birth control injections. No injection- no SNAP card.
I'm not sure if that would work - but something has to give. Babies deserve better and their parents need to understand that.
amen, k. hill. even 5 kids are excessive in this world today. is it necessary? anyone seen the movie idiocracy?! its rather stupid, for a lack of better words, but has truth. basically, the 'educated' couple wait to have kid(s), while the 'uneducated' over populate the earth passing on their genetically inherited stupidity o.O
Amen, Ms. Shelley, agree with you. More than 2 children are not necessary. Large families were fine in more agrarian societies when EXTRA hands were needed to work the farms. Also, there were not any sophisticated contraception which explained the perforation of large families in earlier centuries. However, in these postmodern times with advanced contraception, why, why, WHY would anyone have six or more children. Furthermore, what makes people have six or more children when they know that there is a great likelihood that those children will be subjected to socioeconomic impoverishment and/or want, subsisting at the lowest rudimentary level? Yes, I have seen the movie Idiocy, it is MIND BOGGLING really!
My dear Ms. Shelly, it is the uneducated, undereducated, and the poor who incessantly reproduce. They do not care if their children experience socioeconomic want and deprivation. The large family philosophy is material amenities do not matter and makes for a selfish society. They contend that being poor and struggling makes children stronger. They further contend that their children will not miss for what they don't have. They also have the saying that they have LOVE. Ms. Shelly, large/very large families exist in a world that is DIFFERENT. It is an inverse world with an inverse psychology and philosophy!
Again, I sure do hate being uneducated, under-educated and poor. If only I weren't so ignorant... If only my friends with large families that make over 150,000 dollars a year working at NASA, the FBI, and Lockheed Martin weren't so ignorant. (8, 8 and 6 children respectfully).
It's terrible, really. Their children, who have stay at home mothers, constant attention, and every economic privilege they could ever want, are suffering horribly.
Taking about the TYPICAL, AVERAGE large family. Not those large familiels who are in the EXCEPTIONAL MINORITY. Yes, THEY DO EXIST.
I'd like to see poverty stats with two children vs. six. Do you have those? Are large families making up a large percentage of those on the government doles?
In YOUR world, large families were apparently impoverished. In MY world, they are normal, well-to do, highly educated families with loving, involved (very) parents.
Either way, your problem isn't with the number of children, it's with poverty. Yet I never see any threads about single mothers with one child living in abject poverty because of poor choices or lack of education. You seem to have a problem with large families. I suggest you don't have one... Threads like this though, lead to people thinking that every parent with more than two children is neglectful, abusive and stupid. It's silly and untrue... even for MOST parents of large families.
Of course such women exist. There are numerous books on the impoverished single mother of small families. However, sociological books and studies that I have read indicated that there is a higher percentage of poverty in large families than there are in small families. I am addressing two-parent homes, not single-parent homes. Even people from large/very large families attested that they were impoverished growing up and did not have the amenities or niceties of life.
I have witnessed through stories of my parents, aunts, and uncles how hard they had it growing up in large families, they came from families of TEN to ELEVEN children, having to do WITHOUT and depending upon donations from outside sources. I also had classmates who came from large/very large families and they ranged from poor to impoverished socioeconomically. Seldom have I encountered a large/very large family who was even middle class but I have encountered small families who ranged from middle class to affluent socioeconomically.
Socioeconomically well-off large families like those portrayed in the television show EIGHT IS ENOUGH are in the miniscule minority. Large/very large famlies who are middle, upper middle, and upper income are a rarity. The average large/very large family is poor to even below poverty socioeconomically. The average large/very large family is like that which is portrayed in THE DEAD END KIDS(those who live in urban centers) or THE WALTONS(those who live in more rural settings). The life of children from large/very large families is one of constant struggle for food and clothing. There is simply NOT ENOUGH to go around.
They are often underfed and undernourished. They also are ill or badly clothed. They take what they can get. As a result of their impoverished conditions, they develop a psychology, mindset, and consciousness of scarcity and want. They believe that being poor and impoverished is a normal lifestyle. They see socioeconomic affluence as greed and extravagance. They see amenities and nice things as unnecessary. To the average child of a large/very large families, anything beyond a primitive existence is unheard of and deemed strange. They see children who come from more socioeconomic advantaged backgrounds as spoiled because the latter have the amenities that they do not have.
Children from large/very large families are accustomed to have NO privacy and living on top of each other. This is a fact of life in large/very large famililes. Children from large/very large families DON'T comprehend that there are children who have THEIR OWN rooms. The average child from a large/very large family live in conditions analogous to prison camps. They have THE MOST INFERIOR of material goods. They are a NUMBER instead of an individual. They do not have interaction with their parents but their siblings. Their parents do not teach them but their siblings. Their parents do not raise them but their siblings. There are many people from large/very large familes who ACKNOWLEDGE that they HAVEN'T any interaction with their parents, being RAISED by siblings, living in SQUALOR.
The universe of large/very large families are INVERSE to that of those of small families. Roles of parents and children are reverse of that in small families.. Children assume the MORE ACTIVE role in the household while parents are not as active. Children work from childhood in large/very large families to get the extras and to help support their parents. It is de rigueur for children in large/very large families to have afterschool and weekend jobs. They are also THE LEAST educated. They are extremely lucky if they complete high school, college and advanced education is OUT OF REACH for them.
Oftentimes, they have to forego their education and are taken out of school by their parents to work to supplement family income. THAT is life in the large/very large family. Yes, large/very large families are WRONG. No child should have to be brought up in socioeconomic poverty and want and that is THE LIFE of large/very large families. Yes, that is ABUSIVE! I am VERY PASSIONATE passionate about family planning and the benefits of small family life on parents and children! Np child should have to endure HELL but that is what they endure when they are in a large/very large family.
Life in large/very large families is about SOCIOECONOMIC LACK. People from large/very large families have a QUITE DIFFERENT psychology and perspective regarding life and other things APART from the rest of the population. They do not care about socioeconomic affluence, bettering themselves socioeconomically nor educationally. They are not concerned about pursuing intellectual nor cultural pursuits.
They do not desire nor attain the finer things and amenities of life that other people desire and attain. They are QUITE HAPPY living at the most rudimentary socioeconomic level possible. In fact, the living conditions of many people from large/very large families are primitive in comparison to the rest of the population. They are happy being socioeconomically poor as that was all they were used to growing up.
This is THE AVERAGE large/very large family!
I would say on average in this 'affluent' suburbs just outside NYC, families have around 3 children.
"What causes parents to knowingly have large/very large families?"
That implies that somewhere, somehow, there are parents who unknowingly have large/very large families? I'd be more interested in knowing how that is caused.
Is this statement by gmwilliams true? "The average parent of large/very large families have children without being concerned about the ramifications of their actions upon their children socioeconoimically. They are not concerned about their children's living conditions and the things that their children need beyond bare existence."
What is average? Is this a scientific stat?
I have argued over this point with gm before. If two parents are making it work and their children are happy, even if they do not have, say Everything a smaller family can provide, I'm sure they will be fine and certainly have each other.
For instance, there is a child wanting me to come out and keep her company because she has no one to play with at her grandmother's house. There is a large driveway. If she had a sibling or two, they could be playing together on it. Not bugging an adult neighbor across the street. (Not that I mind.)
It was just after the war and my parents were not wealthy, but there are six children in our family. We had many ways to make up for not having much, such as hand me down dresses (which I guess is upcycling today) and walking one whole mile every day to school, except for my brother who had a bike. I enjoyed those walks, and our rests in between. As the youngest, it was like play and being with my sisters and brothers was always fun. Christmases and holidays were a blast because we got gifts and there were so many of us to play with. We had the usual fights too, but often we'd look back and laugh at those times. Later my dad grew wealthy and that made living easier financially. But we never were hungry, even at our poorest, though sometimes I'd hate the shoes my mom bought for me or the hats she'd make me wear to church.
I have only one child now and Christmases is dominated by adults. I miss those days when lots of us kids would run around the house, or play with the neighbors, that sort of thing. Our only daughter is wonderful, though, but she has grown up fast as she has grown up surrounded by her adult parents.
Changes of fortune are common, I've seen great wealth lost, and great wealth gained but children pose a wealth all their own. When we were sick mom took care of us and we all turned out okay. Mom used to say she was the best doctor (although she never went to medical school). She could inspire us to wellness with her confidence. I can go on and on about the wonderful advantages of growing up in a big family.
One does not need to produce a conglomerate of children in order to have playmates. I enjoyed being an only child, interacting in an adult environment. My parents were my playmates and friends as well as parents. I also had cousins and friends to play with. I also participated in cultural and intellectual activities where I made friends with children from different backgrounds.
Children from large/very large families came to my house to GET AWAY from theirs. As a child and young teen, each time I look around, there was a child/young teen from a large/very large family at my house. They complained how NOISY and CROWDED their house was and wished that they had my life! They DIDN'T want to go home!
CONTINUE WITH THE DISCUSSION!
Usually, I don't weigh in on conversations because I frankly don't give a flying fig how many children a woman chooses to have. That said, no one else should either. If a family can provide the necessary building blocks of life for a child and love them, it doesn't matter how many kids they have. And while I recognize the broad and sweeping generalities about the hardships of big families, I'd have given my eye teeth to have been raised in one. As it was, I ha an incredibly intelligent mother who raised me alone. While my education was her first priority, I also HAD to go to work at 13-not for extras, but to help keep the lights on. Don't judge what you don't know and don't take away ANY woman's right to CHOOSE to bring beautiful, wonderful, and valuable human beings into the world and love them to the best of her ability. How many large families are really milking the system? Everyone I have ever known collecting assistance has been a small or moderately sized family. There are exceptions to every rule, but, for pity's sake, let every woman have the freedom to make the reproductive choices you have fought for her to have, even if they're different from yours.
Motown, Melissa, Grand Wise(not OLD in the slighest) Woman-Esteemed One, Ms. Shelly, Tsaj, and others, great discussion with different albeit excellent viewpoints. THIS is what forums should BE. Have a Blessed Night to all and a WONDERFUL WEEKEND!
This is a subject I have long agreed on. I don't understand why it's so hard for them to say no...we cannot afford any more children! My husband and I would have loved to have 6 or more children, but knew that realistically, 6 children would probably put and keep us in poverty. So, we settled on 2, because that's what we could afford. It wasn't that hard of a decision!
This is so true. What you have stated is RIGHT ON TARGET! The average parent of a large/very large family do not care about the ramifications that having a lot of children have upon the socioeconomic conditions of the family.
If you read the large family blogs and hear what parents of large/very large families say, they rreally don't give two ****** about or a rat's a$$ets if their children are impoverished, struggling, or do without. They contend that they will have the children REGARDLESS so the children MUST learn to do without. They further assert that there is nothing wrong with poverty and doing without for such "will build character" in children and "they won't be spoiled". They furthermore assert that children do not need the amenities and the better things of life.
In my hubs on the large/very large family, many of the commenters from large/very large families have the abovementioned opinions. They assert that there is nothing wrong with doing without and socioeconomic struggle, even poverty. They further insist that the better things of life and socioeconomic affluence are greedy, extravagant, and unnecessary.
They vehemently contend that their children are "doing fine." They also go into attack mode on small families, saying that children of small families are spoiledl blecause they have the amenities of life that THEIR children don't have. Even children from large/very large families hold that opinion. It is only the honest ones from large/very large families who will tell how hellish their lives really were; however, the average person from a large/very large family is in DENIAL.
I digress. The average parant of the large/very large family have an infantile, egotistical, narcissistic premise. It is what THEY want, not caring if their children go hungry or are malnourished or undernourished, living in primitive conditions, wearing castoffs, having little medical/health care, living on top of each other, depending upon outside donations. In large/very large families, it is NOT about the children but what THE PARENTS want. That is why children in large/very large families MUST assume ADULT roles early. They HAVE to.
The AVERAGE child in a large/very large family have to work either to buy extras or to supplement family income. Look at the Jacksons, Joe Jackson was a steelworker with a humongous family. He put his sons to work in order to supplement the family income. Michael Jackson throughout his life was the BREADWINNER for the Jackson family.
The Wayans family of ten children had to go to bed hungry on some nights because there WASN'T enough food in the house. The Wayans family was impoverished as one of the children put it. The Wahlbergs of nine children were also a poor family as one of the children put. Not enough of anything, sleeping many to a bed. An author who is one of fourteen children detailed in his biography how tenuous life in a large/VERY large family is. The large/very large family is WRONG, people who are INTELLIGENT, AWARE, and EDUCATED see how detrimental large/very large families are all around!
Is THIS really necessary? 1-2 children are ENOUGH!
What ARE these "people" "thinking", rather they AREN'T thinking at all but being INSTINCTUAL and PRIMAL, eGAD!
I wonder if you've ever considered the advantages of coming from a large family?
Dear Madam, there are NONE unless one considers impoverishment, hunger, living on top of each other, going without many of the basic necessities as ADVANTAGES! Inverse psychology and thinking at its finest!
As I have reiterated, children from small famlies of 1-2 children have warm friendships and companionships from interfacing with other children, including cousins. I have very warm relationships with my cousins and friends. We have EACH OTHER'S BACK.
People do not have to live in packed, crowded environments to have warm, close, and loving relationshps. The large/very large family is abnormal and is a noisome dinosaur on its way to becoming extinct as more people become educated and are beginning to know better.
Having a large/very large family is fine if one wants to live in packs and on top of each other; live in abject primitive and rudimentary socioeconomic conditions; survivng from hand to elbow; wondering where the next meal will come from, wearing castoff and throwaway, generally inferior, dowdy clothing;working from chlldhood to get the things that normal children have; having to work to supplement parents' income; having to forego any form of secondary or higher education to work to help support family; having no health care; going to bed hungry most of time; having little food; having inferior food; having no privacy, living in the open and exposed. Well, if THAT'S what you want, then a LARGE/VERY LARGE FAMILY is for you. NO THANKS, buddy!
No one who is aware sees the "advantages" of a large/very large families. Children can find companionships and playmates without living in packs. They can have warm and loving relationships without being in a crowd. NEED I SAY MORE!
Was that a no?
If so, it might be worth you considering the other side of it. Just for a bit of balance.
Dear Madam, large families are WRONG and EVIL. No logical, rational, thinking, and NORMAL person has SO MANY children as to bring them up in impoverished or below poverty w/o even many of the basic rudiments. That is HELL and HELL does not have a GOOD side.
Children should be brought up as human beings with the finer amenities and socioeconomic advantages of life, not living at subhuman levels and struggling and begging for crumbs. Children should NOT be brought up with inferior food, castoff, throwaway, and inferior clothing. Living in concentration camp-like conditions or conditions that even a homeless person would not live in.
PLEASE......1-2 children are enough-in such families, children have the amenities of life; they are exposed to things beyoond the bare rudiments. They have more monies allocated to them. They have privacy. Small families are THE BEST.
Susana, are you from a large/very large family of 6 or more children? Do you have a large family yourself? I had parents, extended relatives, associates, classmates, and friends from large/very large families; they maintain that they were impoverished and struggling. They had to do without the basics. They hated the crowded environment where there was no privacy. They hated living like animals. They also lived in abject squalor. Did you want that, Susana? Do you want your children to grow up in squalor?
That is large family life. Poverty, squalor, struggle, hardship. No logical and intelligent person wants that for himself/herself and most of all, he/she DOESN'T want that for his/her child/children! PLEASE, GOOD GOD, woman!
Don't have any links. However, there are books on the detriments of large family life and there are books which correlate poverty to large families. There is a book entitled CHILD POVERTY IN LARGE FAMILIES by Jonathan Bradshaw. There is another book entitled AND THE POOR HAVE CHILDREN(don't know the author's name). There are many sociological books regarding the correlation to large/very large families and poverty. Poverty and large families go hand and hand; these are the facts. which cannot be DENIED! It's REALITY!
Large/verylarge families were good in more agrarian times when hands were needed to work farms. People also had large/very large families where there were no sophisticated/advanced methods of contraception. From the mid-20th to this postmodern era, have large/very large families is totally inexcusable. Children can have warm and loving companionships through friends and other relatives. One does not need to produce a nation of children to have a family.
There are large families that live in poverty. There are large families that don't live in poverty. There are small families that live in poverty. There are small families that don't live in poverty.
My guess would be that there are more large families that live in poverty, than large families that are affluent, because there are MORE people that live in poverty than those that are above middle class. Child numbers do not DETERMINE whether or not poverty occurs. Those that live in poverty are more likely to be poor family planners because of their level of education and surrounding culture. Your suggestion that large family = poverty has no basis in reality. Yes it is expensive to raise 2 kids over 1, and 3 over 2, ect., but financial planning is paramount. So if the point of your post is to advocate small families as a massive generalization that it will result in poverty, it is not correct.
In the home-school community (yes, such a thing exists) the norm is large families, affluent well-educated parents with one breadwinner and a stay at home parent. These families spend almost every moment together and the parents give massive amounts of time and love to the children. They are community oriented and whole families volunteer regularly. The children are exceedingly happy and grow to be successful, well-adjusted responsible adults.
I haven't seen a begging bowl yet... although temporarily dirty children do happen occasionally. I'm not sure where these large, poor families are. Guadalajara maybe?
There is a large percentage of large/very large families who are categorized as poor to impoverished than those who aren't. To reiterate, the typical large/very large family range from poor to below poverty. This is evident by many of the posters who came from such families. They recount a life of socioeconomic struggle and penury, having to do without, even the most basic rudiments.
Very few small families are impoverished and are more likely to be socioeconomically affluent. All the posters herre who came from large/very large families described conditions which one can classify as impoverished and authenticated sociological studies regarding the large/very large family.
They authenticated what I have stated regarding the harsh upbringing they received. They further confirmed how the food they consumed was of inferior quality. They further authenticated how they did not have medical care. Even though many people in large/very large families DENY, DENY, DENY, the facts are there in black and white. Children in large/very large families lead an existence which a normal person would wish upon an abandoned animal. Remember Pat Benatar's song, HELL IS FOR CHILDREN, well, that describes life in large/very large families. Yes, large/very large families are wrong.
Any parent who has a large/very large family, knowing that they are condemning their children to poverty and want is beyond evil. What in the heck are these "parents" "thinking"? Well, they don't give a rat's a$$ets about their children, I will tell you that. Parents of large/very large families are indeed callous and unfeeling regarding the needs of their children and unfortunately, their children consider that normal upbringing.
Having a large family does not DETERMINE wealth. You haven't refuted anything that I said with your response. You bring up tons of anecdotal evidence. I can do that too and so has Melissa B. There is a 5 kid family in my neighborhood. If they can afford to live in a neighborhood with near million dollar property value than I doubt they are impoverished.
I explained to you the reason why large families may correlate with with low income. Just because (and if) multi-children households TEND to be not well off doesn't mean that having multiple children is the CAUSE. They were probably not well off BEFORE they had children. It is correct that having children you can't afford is terrible decision-making. Evil? I save that word for the most heinous acts but I'm not prepared to call people who have kids evil. Ignorance is better. Even stupid, not evil.
I can't believe I wasted a couple minutes of my life reading this post.
If anything, I wish I had about a dozen more brothers and a dozen more sisters. I was less blessed with family for only having one of each.
You're kidding right? Are you? Or you are being sarcastic in your reply? Dear and kind sir, be glad that you come from a small family. Want companions, make some friends. There are friends who are family. Form a relationship with your cousins and other extended relatives.
Large/very lamilies are unnecessary, please get with the program. Small families are wonderful and you can make family anywhere. With large/very large families, you are saddled with noisome siblings, less than perfect siblings, or siblings who are hangers on. Bless God that you came from a small family. Have a Blessed Day, Sir Weisman!
To everyone who posted, thank you for contributing to this thread. Each opinion, viewpoint, and premise,even if it was different, sometimes the opposite, is welcomed. Please continue the discussion. I'M OUT OF HERE, PEACE and LOVE!
No I'm not. Nobody has your back in this world like your family will - provided you're from a decent family with loving parents. I am very thankful for the things I do have just the same.
I didn't read all the replies, but thank you @MelissaBarrett for standing up for large families. What I would like to know is if these families were already on government funding or already in some form of impoverished condition? If the parents aren't working/have less work they could simply have more time to get busy and sometimes accidents happen. Even with multiple forms of birth control it is possible to get pregnant.
I was raised with 6 other siblings, on a $800 a month income with no assistance. We had powdered eggs, dehydrated milk, a vegetable/fruit garden and lots of pasta. My mom mixed everything with water to make it go further and Koolaid was a rare snack. If we weren't broken, squirting blood, or passed out we didn't go to the doctors. Aside from a car accident, I am in excellent health as are my siblings.
Not once did I feel neglected. In fact, by time I reached school I was 2nd to 5th grade level on nearly every topic. I love my mom and dad, my large family and certainly have nothing traumatic that bothered me growing up. This post takes some studies that indicate certain statistics and extrapolates to all large families ending with this:
"Parents who knowingly have more children that THEY can take care and thus subjecting their children to harsh, inhuman conditions can be categorized as thoughtless, selfish, even abusive. "
I find that highly offensive. This post isn't simply sticking to facts, but your own opinions and emotions are added in as well. Probably for flare with the hopes of getting a response. The op seems to be under the impression that a child needs a doctor on call or receiving constant attention to experience a good childhood. Some days I didn't see or talk to my dad except for at the dinner table. But when he was home he made the most of it. My mom made sure to spend time with each of us growing up, and made it count as well. What most people fail to realize, it isn't the amount of time, it is the quality of the time spent. The time I did get was more than enough to show their love and admiration for me.
A good and healthy childhood cannot be ascertained by statistics, government programs, 'one size. . .' standards, study groups, etc. A healthy child is not the product of teachers, doctor visits, and other forms of help. It is the product of attentive, caring parents who put their trust in God and His standards (which far exceed our our own standards) which can shape to each individual child.
You HAVE proven what I have stated about large/very large families. Inferior grade food, no medical care, impoverished. NEED I SAY MORE. C'mon. You have proven what I and many sociological books have stated about large or in your case, very large families, impoverished, inferior quality food, and no medical care. THAT'S no way to raise a child. HOMELESS and INDIGENT people live BETTER! Of course, you did not feel neglected because THAT WAS ALL you knew. C'mon now. Large/very large families SHOULDN'T be praised. It is a breeding ground for pathologies such as gangs, juvenile delinquency, crime(because of socioeconomic lack), teenage pregnancy, and a poverty mindset. Small familes are better-children receive better health care, eat more nutritious foods(powdered eggs-ugh), have more amenities, more parental time, are exposed to more cultural and intellectual things etc. What you have describe is a typical, average large family life of impoverishment.
When I stated assistance regarding large/very large families. I did not say large/very large families are on welfare. By asistance, I meant that the typical/average large families are so poor and impoverished, that they need assistance either by relatives, the church, or the government to stay on an even socioeconomic keel. YOU HAVE PROVEN ME RIGHT! The large/very large family is a pathology that is thankfully becoming extinct as more people become educated to the detriments of large/very large family life.
SMART, INTELLIGENT people who came from large/very large families describe the general dysfunction of large/very large families. They tell you how they went without. How they had to consume inferior food if they ate at all. How they had no medical care. In fact, they would tell you they hated it. Living at the barest existence is NO WAY to live, if one can call that living. Prisoners and concentration inmates lived better than many children in large/very large famiilies. The rest of those from large/very large families although they led hellish lives, rationalize it, being in DEEP, DEEP, DEEP DENIAL.
You keep mentioning studies... yet I see no links. You also have diagnosed a few people here with being in denial... yet I see no psychological licensing. I'm not sure what you are trying to accomplish, but I'm considering having another child now... just to make you type in capital letters at me. Besides, I want to see if we immediately slip into abject poverty, I get my degrees taken away from me, and my house suddenly falls into squalor. Will my IQ drop 40 points and my (chubby) children suddenly become malnourished? Will their clothes dissolve off their bodies spontaneously?
Can I youtube the sudden transformation?
Be MY guest. I know large family culture and psychology. People from large families were my parents, aunts, uncles, some cousins, classmates, friends, and associates. I also did extensive studies on large/very large families in college. I also read books on birth order and family size.
Why are people in denial and rationalize that large/very large family when they know that by having so many children, the children will be impoverished with inferior quality food, no medical care, inferior, castoff clothing, having to work for the extras that normal children have, no access to cultural and educational activities, little parenting time, raising themselves or other siblings, having to forego secondary or higher levels of educatoin to supplement family income. My GOD, WHAT UNIVERSE ARE PEOPLE LIVING IN? In my circles, we believe in small families of 1, 2, or maybe 3 children so they have the best amenities that life has to offer which includes good health/medical/dental care, fine clothing, fine schools, better and nutritious food. Dear God, I am experiencing a cultural shock just hearing some people talk(not you Melissa).
Children are precious human beings not just packs. I believe that children should have a high quality of socioeconomic life, not be condemned to a childhood of socioeconomic struggle and want. I refuse to applaud impoverishment. I furthermore refuse to contend that poverty is a noble and normative lifestyle. Poverty has a deleterious effect on children physically, emotionally, mentally, and psychologically, even psychically but the average/typical parent of a large/very large family really does not give two hoots about this at all!
I would say that your experience is coloring your judgement. You have been making some pretty extreme statements and stating them as facts. I would also say that you might need to actually expand your experiences a bit before making such sweeping generalizations.
It might be considered a bit rude to say that people with large families are evil and don't give a rat's ass about their children... such blanket statements are often wrong and you are being needlessly insulting... and honestly a bit unworldly.
But, as I am absolutely certain you are completely wrong... and you have provided no actual evidence to the contrary... I'm going to chalk it up to stereotyping which, while regretful, really doesn't hurt anybody but yourself.
The fact that you believe something doesn't make it so, and millions of children from large families will continue to lead happy, healthy wonderful childhoods, whether you like it or believe it or not.
I AM NOT WRONG. On my hubs on the large family, many commenters who are from large family admit to what I was stating in my hubs. Melissa, please read my hubs on the subject. Many of the commenters acknowledged how hellish their childhoods were because of penury and impoverishment.
I KNOW IMPOVERISHED CHILDREN FROM LARGE FAMILIES-my parents, aunt, uncles, and some cousins grew up in poverty as did my classmates and friends from large families( they told me about their lives) as associates(told me about their lives). Read sociological books on the family, the larger the family, the more impoverished whereas the smaller, the family, the more affluent. Not stereotyping at all. The average/large family is more like THE WALTONS than EIGHT IS ENOUGH!
Encountered only 2 women from large/very large families who had socioeconomically affluent childhoods, the overwhelming majority that I have encountered had impoverished childhoods. Large/very large families=poverty, why can't you and other people recognize this?!
Dear Melissa B, I do not want any child to suffer socioeconomically nor otherwise. I want children to have THE BEST socioeconomic opportunities and advantages possible. That was the way I was raised and I want every child to be afforded that. If I had my way, every family would be middle class or better. Human beings should live a civilized life, not a life of constant struggle. Much love to you!
I'm fairly certain that the point of these threads is so that others will read your hubs. I have no desire... I will read one of the studies that you keep talking about, if you ever want to get around to actually producing one.
Again, you are telling me about your experiences... That's nice... however I have my own experiences and they don't look like yours at all. So yes, judging by my experiences and the stunning lack of evidence being put forth, I have to assume you are wrong.
I'm not all the sudden going to believe you because you have some stories and a few irritated commenters that obviously agreed with you in the first place, or they wouldn't have read your hubs. Others, like me, who have had different experiences wouldn't bother reading something we know to be false.
I took sociology classes in college too... as a matter of fact it was my minor. I worked as a social worker for quite some time. I've seen lots of poor families... with one or two children. I can't bring to mind one with six or more. Lots of neglect of small families.... yet none that I saw in big families. Again, my experience... which for some reason seems to be drastically different from yours. Go figure.
Have a B.A. in Sociology and have dealt with large families as a volunteer. An overwhelmingly majority of large/very large families I have encountered were poor, impoverished, or below poverty. I and my parents have regularly donated food, clothing, and other materials to such families. Very, very seldom encountered a large family who was affluent. On the other hand, seldom encountered a poor small family but those who were middle to very affluent.
In large/very large families, there is a higher incidence of child neglect that there is in small families. Parents cannot reasonably raise a large amount of children. Oldest/older children are going to be waysided or ask to parent younger siblings. Middle children will be lost in the shuffle(a middle child told me this) while the youngest/younger children will get the lion's share of parental attention. Please read some books on family size and large famiies. There are plenty of such books. I have done a lot of reading in addition to mingling with plenty of people from large families as well as commenters who TRUTHFULLY detailed large/very large family life.
Have you taken the time to consider you were volunteering to do some type of charity work? To assume that the largeness of the family indicates a family's ability to care for itself is discriminatory at best. Where were you volunteering? At a family help center? Of course there will be large families there. That makes as much sense as saying I volunteered in South Chicago to help out, and I found that black people have a hard time taking care of themselves. Or I helped in San Antonio, Texas, and I have determined that hispanics and spanish people have a hard time providing for themselves. You might as well be hunting over a baited field. You "very seldom encountered a poor small family." Come on! Go to ANY major city in America and you will find Single moms with two kids, small families with one to two kids, and they are struggling just to make a go of it. You have NO facts and not tangible sources...only wild thoughts you're throwing out as if they were chiseled in stone facts. Your family had it tough...we get it...doesnt mean everyone's family did. Maybe your family needed some help in learning how to manage finances...no insult intended, but my parents raised 7 kids, with my father paying for 6 of them to attend private Christian college on less than 30K per year. Don't tell me it can't be done....I watched him do it. And we never gave up our lifestyle to accomplish it...we had plenty of time together as a family and we never went hungry.
My parents, aunts, uncles, extended relatives, and some cousins came from large, impoverished families. My parents raised themselves up from poverty and had only one child. I and other small families were the more affluent children in my neighborhood while those from large/very large families are the ones who were impoverished. I volunteered in hospitals and in child care centers. Those who were from large/very large families were the impoverished ones. They went hungry or had inferior quality food or food byproducts.
Out of 10 children in my maternal grandparents had, only 3 achieved middle class and ujpper middle class status, the rest remained in poverty. Many of my extended relatives from large/very large families remained in poverty. Wake up man, large/very large families are instrumental to poverty, why can't you realize this? My God! Please get a sociology book. Don't you realize that there is a high rate of impoverishement in developing countries because of a preponderance of large families? That is why contraception is introduced in such countries is to educate women on the importance of having children that one can comfortably take care of. The rise of small families is correlated to the increase of living standards. I learned that in high school, didn't you?
In the book, CHILD POVERTY IN LARGE FAMILIES, there is a marked correlation between large/very large families and poverty. You cannot deny that as much as you want to try. The facts are in black and white. The truth can sting but it is there. As my late father stated, you can tell people the facts about something detrimental; however, they refuse to listen or as he stated, some people are HARD to learn.
So, basically, what you're saying is that anyone from a large/very large family is inferior to anyone from a small/only child family. Absolute nonsense.
You are a highly educated woman. You know that there is a greater likelihood of socioeconomic impovreishment in large/very large families than it is in small families. As a teacher, you know the effects that socioeconomic poverty have upon children mentally, emotionally, and psychologically. In the average/typical large/very large family, socioeconomic poverty is a normative way of life. Chilidren in such families have monies for barely the rudiments. They do not have what other normal children have. In the typical large family household, there are no books nor other forms of intellectual stimulation. Monies are concentrated on buying the rudiments.
Children from large/very large families oftentimes begin school academically behind other children because there were no forms of intellectual stimuli in their home environment. Children from large/very large families oftentimes consume inferior quality of food or food byproducts because fresh fruits, vegetables, meats, and fish are prohibiitively costly for the average large/very large family. Two decades ago, I watched a progam on DATELINE in which a father of FOURTEEN was worried as to how to feed his evergrowing family. It was suggested that he get food that was discarded from supermarkets to feed his family.
Also, children from large/very large families like one of the posters indicated that he/she seldom received medical care, if at all. Yes, children from large/very large families do not receive medical, health, or dental care. That is a fact. Like food, many children from large/very large families only receive medical and health care through school programs like they do if they want to eat nutritious meals. They also wear clothes that are donated or castoffs.
Children from large/very large families must work from childhood if they want the things that normal children have. They also have to work to supplement family income and oftentimes have to forego higher forms of education in order to support their families. I know you have heard about this. No child should be subjected to a life of socioeconomic struggle and penury because the parents decide to incessantly and unthinkingly reproduce children without considering the socioeconomic as well as emotional and psychological ramifications of their act upon the family.
@gmwilliams - You are right in claiming that I proved your point, but only when it pertains to statistical value, not your fantastical assumptions. You believe I suffered abuse and exist in some form of blissful denial. You are taking statistics (with no links or mentioned literature backing them up, btw), adding into them your own presupposition then you again extrapolated your thoughts into my life, my psyche, my personal experience, and my family. My point was that despite your un-backed statistics, your assumptions are wrong.
You are also taking the experience of some and thinking it must reflect the sum of the issue; when it only reflects on them, not the general populace. I do have a cousin who suffered from a large family. However, their complaints are equally found in small families. Things such as favoritism, abuse, lazy parents, impatient parents, etc. are common in even small families.
Sometimes the psyche of certain individuals are more fragile. Again, that is existent in even small families. My wife came from a family of 4, later three after a divorce. I won't go into details, but lets just say she walked away with far more scars and emotional baggage than I. Her parents even required government assistance from time to time. Wasn't until she was older did things become financially better for them, but it changed little for her. She was even behind in many ways, according to public school standards, and had to play catch up in 12th grade. In the opposing side, myself, I scored in the top 10% for the Michigan's assessment test and had two districts fight over me. Reason being that I attended one school for half a year and attended the other school for the rest of the year, and whoever claimed me would be granted additional funding because of test scores.
(For the record, my wife isn't a dummy. She is very wise, but her mom simply didn't spend the time with her on school work that she should have.)
My kids on the other hand are not only ahead of their grade level, but can also communicate openly and more clearly than many public school children. Why? Because we as parents hold our kids to higher standards than the teachers, and will spend the time to ensure those standards are met. Even in a large family.
You state: "When I stated assistance regarding large/very large families. I did not say large/very large families are on welfare. By asistance, I meant that the typical/average large families are so poor and impoverished, that they need assistance either by relatives, the church, or the government to stay on an even socioeconomic keel. YOU HAVE PROVEN ME RIGHT! The large/very large family is a pathology that is thankfully becoming extinct as more people become educated to the detriments of large/very large family life. "
I clearly stated my parents did it on 800 a month without help. It is no pathology, it is a choice. The idea that we don't make choices, but simply suffer from chemical reactions that direct our every action is a lie. My wife and I want a larger family, but we are making the conscious choice to wait. It may not even happen, but if it does it will be a choice, not a mental illness (another unfounded assumption of yours).
" HOMELESS and INDIGENT people live BETTER!"
That is nothing more than emotional appeal. If you want to discuss the topic fine, but please don't be insulting.
Also this: "SMART, INTELLIGENT people who came from large/very large families describe the general dysfunction of large/very large families."
So only people who agree with you on this topic are intelligent and smart? Only those who are educated stay away from large families? This is about as closed minded as they come. If there is one thing of which I am certain - that is intelligence and education is by no means measured with you as an example. No insult intended. My father, while a layman, is far more intelligent than most people I know.
You said: "Of course, you did not feel neglected because THAT WAS ALL you knew. C'mon now. "
Again, extrapolating your thoughts and beliefs into my psyche and personal life experience. I am actually more than familiar with small families. Half my aunts and uncles lived in less than a mile from me, and I spent a good deal time with my cousins. We had the large family, while they were all in sizes of 3-5's (including parents). Guess where they wanted to go? My house. No matter how much I spent at their houses, guess where I wanted to be? My house. Some of them are now in poorer conditions than myself with only 0-2 kids. All of my brothers and sisters are making it on their own, a couple even owning their own businesses over the years. Besides children are incredibly observant and can ascertain neglect with no point of reference other than their own experience.
Anyways all you have really done is appeal to emotion, insult anyone who doesn't agree with you, glance over actual talking points, throw statistics and supposed literature into the conversation with no backing, add your own presuppositions, and type in capital letters. Oh, you also gloat over moot points. At least in the few posts you've authored.
@MelissaBarrette your comments are hilarious, witty and spot-on! If I responded similarly I'd probably get better responses. I myself am a somewhat serious person, so it doesn't always come easy to respond in a witty fashion.
First of all sir, I NEVER ASSUME. I have dealt with people from large/very families for most of my life. They were my parents, aunts, uncle, other assorted relatives, some cousins, friends, classmates, and other associates. They were impoverished or worse as children and endured hellish conditions but at least they truthfully stated how horrid the conditions were instead of glorifying such conditions.
I do not appeal to emotion, I could care less about emotion. If you have read sociological books and studied the family extensively, you know that there is a preponderance of socioeconomic poverty and want in large families. You have confirmed how children in large/very large families have a low quality of care. You further acknowledged how children in such families have no medical nor health care.
You also elucidated how children from large families consume inferior food or food byproducts, never nutritious foods. I am educated and intelligent with a B.A. Degree in Sociology. Even though there is poverty in small families, it is of a smaller percentage than it is in large/very large families. That is a fact and you have confirmed it to a "T".
The 2nd to last paragraph to should read: "At least in the few posts I've read that you have wrote." Had my own writing agendas on my mind at that moment, lol.
I must say that I thoroughly disagree with your theory that large families lead to lower living standards. I come from a family of 7 children, my mother from a family of 6 and my father from a family of 12. I personally have 4 children plus 2 step-children.
While we may not have eaten steak and ice cream for every dinner, we did not go hungry. Nor did we rely on a school meal program, as we were home schooled, or placed in private Christian schools. My father was a pastor of small Baptist churches throughout the states of Alabama and New York, so we never had a large pay check coming into the house. However, we never did without either.
True, the more expensive cuts of meat were more often than not left on the butcher's counter, for more affordable pieces. However, my mom could take any cut of meat, make it tender and tasty, and stretch it far enough to feed an army.
You argue that large families lead to poverty, when in fact, large families lead to wealth and safety. George Washington - 5 brothers, and 1 sister. Ben Franklin - 16 siblings. John D Rockefeller, 6 siblings. Donald Trump 4 siblings. John F. Kennedy 8 siblings. Need I continue? Your arguments don't stand up to actual facts.
Yes there are some people who should not be having more children. However, if you look at statistics it is not the huge families in America draining the welfare pot dry. Those families have hardworking moms and dads who try to provide for their family. In fact, most of the welfare recipients are either single parents, or families with less than 4 children. Call the IRS and Department Of Human Resources, and do the numbers research yourself.
I think this Hub is more related to your personal experience than that of large families as a whole. You need to get familiar with true statistical and historical facts...not just what your family went through. I understand hard times, and as I said we never had the nicest things growing up, but I still say we did not sacrifice our quality of life. There was always plenty of love found in our home growing up, and I would trade all the steak, fancy cars, expensive designer clothes, and any other niceties you might think of if it would guarantee me that love.
Of course, not lower standard for you because you grew up in such but lower standards for those who came from small families. I studied the large/very large family in college and did extensive studies on large/very large families so I know what I am talking about, thank you kindly. Large families does mean a lower standard of living; however to children born in large families such standards are quite acceptable and a normative way of life. Poverty, scarcity, and struggle are an integral part of the mindset and psychology of those who come from large/very large famlilies. I am not surprised in the least. Heard enough from the large family camp, time for those from small families to weigh in on this!
LOL You KNOW about this? Name your esteemed sources...show your statistics..stop spouting your personal opinion. What I am giving you is fact. America's MOST INFLUENTIAL families are LARGE families. I believe you simply want to push your own beliefs on others without having someone with FIRSTHAND knowledge of what goes on in these situations. As I said, we never went without and our quality of life was great. We had large homes, often on large land tracts with room to grow and enjoy life...not because we were rich but because we were frugal. Dad skipped the Cadillac for a Chevy. No lower quality of life...the car ran fine and got him where he needed to go. You can NOT judge someone elses quality of life on your standards. What makes you happy may not make another person happy. For instance, I would not be satisfied with a condo in the city. However, my friend who lives in Chicago has no interest in living in a small town like Stockton, Missouri, where I reside comfortably....despite my family's size I think you are so focused on what you believe you have closed your mind to the possibility that you may be wrong...that is where you make your mistake as a writer. You must be willing to alter your belief system when confronted with the truth. To believe something without knowing the truth is simple ignorance and as such, is forgiveable. To believe that same thing once a truth is presented that proves it to be false is informed stupidity...and you can't fix stupid...not even with duct tape.
I AM NEVER WRONG. You can glorify the large/very large family all you want but having large/very large families is completely insane in this postmodern society. There's NOTHING wrong with having a small family so don't push your large family philosophy on me. I do not believe in large families: I believe in small families!
I am no longer interested in hearing what you have to say on the subject, thank you. I staunchly believe in family planning and in 1-2 child families as my immediate circle of friends in New York City who are highly educated, affluent, and professional(some retired). We find the large/very large family to be totally aberrant. Good day sir.
For those who are interested, there's another thread on large families by esteemed hubber moneyfairy:
If ten children are born to wonderful/loving/accepting/involved and engaged parents who can give what is psychologically and materially necessary, those children will be ten more wonderful people on the earth who will help the others. We need them.
There are FINITE resources on this earth. We don't need 10 children. 1-2 children are enough for any couple. Large/very large families were fine in more agrarian times but NOT in this postmodern, computerized 21st century of advanced contraception.
Get real, people. Educated and intelligent people do not incessantly reproduce, they plan carefully and mindfully, considered the socioeconomic, emotional, and psychological needs of their children. Simply put, educated and intelligent people DON'T have large/very large families.
-what? there is not enough resources? Yes there is.
There is so much in the way of abundant resources, we can't even begin to gather it all. I believe the means of growing, harvesting and distributing will be changing in the future. We need souls to come forth and create necessary change. Who cares if they are from a small or big family, as long as the parents are good and capable?
QUOTE: Besides the financial aspect, there is the mental and psychological aspects. Parents of such large families do not and/or are unable to give their children the prerequisite attention needed. Some children are going to be neglected while others will receive care of some type. Oldest/older children will be consigned to parent younger siblings thus forfeiting their formative childhood and adolescent years. In many large/very large families, oldest children will be asked to drop out of school in order to help their parents socioeconmically. Parents who knowingly have more children that THEY can take care and thus subjecting their children to harsh, inhuman conditions can be categorized as thoughtless, selfish, even abusive. What are YOUR thoughts of this?
I love this paragraph....I tested out in the 96th percentile on my SATs...I made a 92 on my ASVAB at 17...I graduated highschool at the top of my class with a 3.94. Oh incidentally, each of my six siblings had similar GPAs in both highschool and college. You are once again throwing out facts you know nothing about. Look up homeschooling statistics for large families, and you will see that we smoked public school kids consistently in our scores on SATs, CATs, and every other achievement test they threw at us. I am not the exception to the rule...I am the norm among large families that homeschool... You see, I also am educated...and not on any Pell Grant or government funded program. I learned everything I know by working hard to pay for knowledge I could not acquire by hands on experience.
You obviously hate large families, and you've completely closed your mind to the possibility that your wrong. However, your readers deserve a fair and balanced report. God help America if you or anyone like you ever becomes our foremost news journalist....you're way too closeminded.
There is a similiar thread by another hubber:
Sweeping with a broad brush knocks off the good stuff.
Good stuff, oh yes, socioeconomic poverty, doing without even the necessities, consuming inferior food or food byproducts, having to work from childhood, oh yeah that is so GOOD. The power of inverse logic.
Sorry, I have a large family... no poverty... one working child, he's 20 though so I think it's fine. He's also 6'4 and 300 lbs of basically pure muscle. I'd hate to think of what he'd look like if he'd actually been fed real food.
So, if I show you a random article about a large family with a garden who eats fresh, organic vegetables almost every day of the year, then I'm completely right about everything ever?
Sorry, you're wrong. Again. Glad you volunteer though. I do too... with my kids. It's a great learning experience. What's neat is my husband is a stay-at-home dad too. Yet we're still above the poverty line.
You keep telling us that this doesn't happen. It does happen, it is happening... you have your opinions... I live proof that your generalizations are wrong.
We had steak tonight for dinner btw... with fresh corn on the cob, baked potatoes and a salad. I just checked, their pajamas are still in one piece (the cockroachs haven't eaten through them yet), they are clean (we threw them in the river with a donated bar of hotel soap), they are sleeping in their own beds (the rats must have taken the night off), in their own rooms... The house is surprisingly free from holes in the walls, we have electricity, I'm typing this on one of four laptops in the house (the 22 month old doesn't have his own yet, we are so neglectful but his 5 year old sister lets him watch hers sometimes).
I'm working on next years curriculum right now. I'm trying to figure out how to teach it while completely ignoring and neglecting my children. It gets harder each year. I'm still confused about how to get them medical treatment since they aren't in public school... I guess they don't get to eat breakfast or lunch like those lucky one-kid families who give their children to complete strangers for 8 hours each day so they can earn money to buy... well exactly the same stuff that we have... I'm sure the 2 hours a day they see their parents is so worth it though. They will grow up so much more stable than our kids.
Quote: I AM NEVER WRONG.
Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall. ~ Ancient Proverb
First, you are wrong.... second I never tried to push my large family views on you. You're cramming small family views down my throat . I simply said I had a large family, and never once did I say it was bad to have a small one. You are the only spouting negativity here man. Have one kid, or have 16...I don't care how many you have. But don't sit in your desk chair and judge my family simply because we are larger than your idea of perfect. Be fair and balanced in your judgement....in other words...this particular family had a hard time taking care of themselves...not large families in general. Your ramblings on about studies and facts that do not exist tire me. I showed you already that some of the greatest men in American history come from large families...if you like we can look at world history too.
The bottom line is that for you to judge someone for having more kids than you think they ought to is wrong. Just as it would be wrong for me to claim that someone who chooses never to have children is wrong. Not making fun of your choices for a small family....so please...stop making fun of my choice to have a large one
"Benjamin Franklin was born in Boston on January 17, 1706. He was the tenth son of soap maker, Josiah Franklin. Benjamin's mother was Abiah Folger, the second wife of Josiah. In all, Josiah would father 17 children.
Josiah intended for Benjamin to enter into the clergy. However, Josiah could only afford to send his son to school for one year and clergymen needed years of schooling. But, as young Benjamin loved to read he had him apprenticed to his brother James, who was a printer. After helping James compose pamphlets and set type which was grueling work, 12-year-old Benjamin would sell their products in the streets…" No, life for Benjamin was not on Easy Street, but read on...
Good God people, I am really on a DIFFERENT planet tonight. In the eighteenth century, large/very large families were COMMONPLACE as there was lack of sophisticated contraception. Besides, that era was an agrarian era so people had large/very large families to WORK THE LAND. However, in the 21st century, there is NO need for large/very large families. There is contraception, there is a more advanced social network, and children are no longer needed to work the land. 1-2 children are all that is needed. PLEASE THINK and RECOGNIZE!
I know right? I want to thank you, from the bottom of my heart, for weighing in on what should happen in my uterus. You are a God-send. I'll just send the extra three back, tell them I don't give a rats ass about them and I was stupid for having them.
I spent all this time thinking that my reproductive system was mine and occasionally shared with my husband. I didn't know you got a vote. Sorry, I'll let you know next time I plan on something going in or out of it.
But, what if Benjamin Franklin had never been born?
The important thing is for each couple to know what it can handle. If a couple cannot handle ten children, don't have them. If the parents can and want to, its their own choice.
You have wise words, for those who have the ears to hear, gm. But, look at Angelina Jolie and her brood. She just wanted to have a lot of kids around her, (I guess.) What do you think of what she is doing?
Adopting is not the same as having, but the outcome is the same. Is her situation a bad one, in your opinion?
18th century...really? Donald Trump, John Kennedy, and the Rockefellers are all 18th century? You're boat is sinking brother....better start swimming. Like I said...if you're going to quote facts be sure you link to them...makes you seem a little more credible. BTW...I got my facts on these men with a 30 second Google search...before writing again I suggest you perform a similar search.
I was discussing Ben Franklin, not Donald Trump, John Kennedy nor John Rockefeller. Please read before commenting. I studied history, have a degree in it. Ben Franklin was in the 18th century. Donald Trump (20th century) came from a medium sized family of 5 thank you so his family would not be considered large. John Kennedy (20th century) was a rarity among large families so was John Rockefeller who had six chlldren. Read books on Trump, Kennedy, and Rockefeller, don't have to use Google as you do.
repeating my question: Consider Angelina Jolie and her brood. She just wanted to have a lot of kids around her, (I guess.) What do you think of what she is doing?
Adopting is not the same as having, but the outcome is the same. Is her situation a bad one, in your opinion, gmwilliams?
So, you agree: If you can afford many children, a large family is not a bad situation!
She saw those children in need and decided to take them into her home.
Now she has a large family. What in the WORLD is the difference???
To me large/very large families are bad whether you can afford them or not. Children need individualized attention and in large/very large families, THEY DON'T GET IT. Again, small families ARE BEST, especially for the children. I am against large/very large families and will always be against large/very large families. THANK YOU, keep your pro-large family stance to yourself, thank you! A person has to be extremely obsessed to have a large/very large family. Nothing's wrong with small families! Large/very large families are evil for the reasons I have mentioned.
I read BOOKS on the large/very large family so I KNOW but you elect not to listen. Well, YOUR bad not mine!
If you came from a large happy family you would not be proclaiming what you do. You should watch episodes of The Waltons which was a show based on a true family growing up in the 40's. In the final analysis, its not the large family which is bad. It 's the not being able to afford it.
But, In my life, I could not even afford the two children I had… But, the angels always came through.. like a miracle every single month. And even though my children are up and out, I still continue to experience miracles in survival! Faith is powerful. Maybe that is what unsuccessful large families need more of...faith and positivity.
Thank God, I came from a HAPPY, SMALL family. The Waltons were dirt poor. Never watched The Waltons. Not my style. What is this obsession with large/very large families? I LOVE SMALL FAMILIES, they are the best. I would rather be in hell than grow up in a large/very large families living a bare subsistent existence. I had a loving, happy childhood of dancing school, attending theatre, going to fine restaurants, eating nutritious food, attending fine schools. The heck with large/very large families, why would I want to live in poverty? Kathryn, get real, THINK!
There is a lot of love in large families. That is the problem with advocating for smaller families with such force, as you do. Children bring so much love. so much. so much.
It is like belief in God… a personal matter.
It hurts people's hearts to hear you advocating for small families. It is America for gosh sakes! Let people make up their own minds!
Good God woman, there is NOTHING wrong with SMALL families. Not everyone wants to be a breeding farm!
I never said that, as you well know. And I agree... if you are not cut out for raising children, don't stop using birth control. If you end up having a lot of children, because your birth control methods keep failing, you should make the effort to rise to the occasion.
There's always abortion for accidental pregnancies at the very beginning of conception. Don't have to bring UNWANTED and UNNEEDED children into this world! No excuse accepted!
There is NOT always abortion!!!! How dare you say that! Do you know how hard it is to witness the euthanasia of an elderly dying pet dog? Cutting up and sucking out a brand new person is a millions times WORSE!
HOW DARE YOU I am glad you have exited this discussion.
No hard feelings.
(And if the staff aborts me for this. GOOD)
I suggest you don't be one then.
I didn't breed though, I had children, small little wonderful people that have/will grow up to be large wonderful people. You do realize we are talking about children, not puppies... right?
Advocate for whatever you like, however it's a bit presumptuous to try to control another woman's uterus. I'm sorry you had a bad experience, it's just not the experience I have seen.
Again, unless you are going to bring actual facts... what you are doing is being intolerant of individuals who choose a different life than you would. Your opinions don't hold water in this case. I'm sorry. I'm not sure why you are so angry, but maybe your energy could be better spent fighting actual abuse and neglect rather than insulting caring parents and happy families. It just seems kinda judgmental and driven by prejudice.
But again, it doesn't really matter. Just because you feel that way doesn't make it true and I doubt that one single person is going to change their reproductive habits because of your disapproval.
I am for family planning, planned parenthood, and the SMALL family. I belonged to a Planned Parenthood club in my youth and continue to give generously to the wonderful organization. Why would any woman choose to have a large/very large family is TOTALLY BEYOND me? Michelle Duggar anyone.
Again, good for you. The fact is it's none of your business what Michelle Duggar or any other woman does with her uterus. Planned parenthood is great, if you don't want to have more children. If you do, then you are STILL planning parenthood... just apparently not the kind you like... which is completely irrelevant to anyone else's reproductive organs but your own.
Yes, actually choosing my family structure all by my self is a bizarre concept. Again, I should let some random person with a lot of capital letters and absolutely no proof of the correctness of her opinions usurp my reproductive rights.
I guess I'm just weird in thinking that it's none of her business. Go figure.
There is no need for large/very large families in this postmodern 21st century society where small families are more applicable to such a society. While you speak up for large/very large families, I will be an advocate for small families. Agree to disagree. Good night.
Again, you don't get to dictate what another woman needs... especially when it comes to her uterus. Each woman only gets one... that is the only one they are in charge of.
I am not advocating for anything, it is each family's choice how many, if any, children they would like. As most people only have one family... maybe that's the only one they should be trying to judge... eh?
Furthermore, the large/very large family is a dinosaur in postmodern American society. 1-2 children is all any couple needs. This is not an agrarian society but a highly complex urbanized and computerized society so extra children are unnecessary as they are not needed to work the land. Furthermore, please think, people had large/very large families as a result of contraception either not being available or being unsophisticated. With the advanced level of contraception, why have a large/very large family? I know your answer alreadly(sigh).
Well, in all actuality, there are enough people walking around stomping on the earth. Lets stop having children altogether for the sake of the earth!
I think you are advocating zero population growth. How about NO population growth? Even better.
Yes, in fact, I am for controlled breeding. Kathryn, why do you want people to have large/very large families? Why do you hate small families? I am glad to have come from a loving, small middle class family with all the love and material amenities. I NEVER wanted a large/very large family observing children who grew up in them and from my parents, aunts, uncle, assorted relative, and cousins. The hell with large/very large families to be more succinct! Give me a 1-2 child family like I grew up in. Large/ very large famlies are evil and there should be penalties instilled for couples who insist on having such families. GOOD NIGHT, KATHRYN.
It is like belief in God… a personal matter.
It hurts people's hearts to hear you advocating for small families. It is America for gosh sakes! Let people make up their own minds!
There is a lot of love in large families. That is the problem with advocating for smaller families with such force, as you do. Children bring so much love. so much. so much.
What WORLD do you live in? Small families are where children receive the most love and individualized attention. Why are you pushing large families? Not everyone wants a large/very large family. In fact, the more educated a woman becomes, there is less likelihood that she will want a large/very large family. Get off it, huh! I am from a small family and damn glad of it! Leave the large/very large family to the lesser educated woman who does not know any better than to profligately reproduce at will. I know that you are pro-large family and feel that every woman should have a lot of children.
now you are putting words in my mouth, which is not right. I am for personal choice. I am for rising to the occasion just in case you end up with a large family! Gosh! what about a newly blended large family? Stop sweeping with your broad brush!
(edit ) Good night to you, gmwilliams. This is one issue we will never see eye to eye on. And thats okay!
Lesser educated women? Abigail Adams...president John Q Adams' wife...5 children...Elizabeth Cady Stanton....womens rights leader...mother of 7.....Mina Edison, wife of Thomas Edison....6 children..... All highly knowledgeable women who chose large families...should I continue? Your facts are again wrong.
Genius, they DIDN'T chose to have large famlies. They DIDN'T have access to birth control so there was no choice but to have a lot of children. As women gained access to birth control, families became......SMALLER. Please return to school and study the family and family planning, son.
Again, want to compare degrees or maybe IQs? Assume that women with large families are uneducated and stupid if you like... but again... not holding water in this case is it?
You read books on large families.... I ACTUALLY LIVED IN ONE...as did my mom, my dad, their parents before them, and their grandparents too. In fact, our LARGE family lineage traces back to pre-revolutionary war times, with many large broods in the family tree.
How does having a large family reduced individual attention? I came from a family of 7 children, yet my father still took me fishing. I still had one on one help with homework. I still had a great relationship with my parents, as did my siblings.
Look, there is nothing wrong with having a small family. There is something wrong with me saying that you can not have one. There is something equally as wrong with you saying what you're saying. You sir, are a liar when you say things like children from large families are usually neglected, forced to drop out of school to raise younger siblings, and tend to achieve less academically.
I again turn to history...Ben Franklin, inventor...George Washington, President...Dwight D. Eisenhower, President... John F Kennedy, President, Paul "Bear" Bryant, perhaps the greatest football coach in college history, shall I continue? Former candidate for president, Ross Perot has 5 children... and the man is a self made millionaire...I dare say that his children do not feel neglected or unhappy with their quality of life.
Again, you're not only wrong, you're stating lies as fact and you can NOT back them up with a single credible source. You say numerous studies have been done...show me one credible one? Sure large families in THIRD WORLD countries may be doing without....but in America the only reason you do without is because you won't DO in the first place. You weary me with your constant "I read books" and "numerous reports." I read a book on childbirthing once, but I would make a lousy OBGYN. Just saying!
To reiterate, I had parents, aunts, uncles, relatives and assorted people from large/very large families. They told me how harsh their lives were. I also had classmates and friends from large families and they told me that their lives were utter hell. One girl from 20 children cursed her mother for having so many children. I can tell you about large family through these associations.
Furthermore, I personally know and worked with several people from large/very large families who had to forego their secondary education in order to work and support their families. What WORLD are you living in, young man? I have read books on how children from large/very large families had to forego school to work in order to support families. What UNIVERSE are you in? I am talking about America. I know of numerous people that happened to and so did my mother and many of my friends who dealt with children from large families. I also had great uncles and great aunts who had to drop out of school to work. Read some book on poor large/very large families and you will know that I AM RIGHT AS USUAL.
You have led a sheltered life, young man. I KNOW BETTER! My maternal aunt, who was the 3rd of TEN children, had to parent younger siblings before she escaped at the age of sixteen. Man, WAKE UP to REALITY! Several of my poorer classmates from large/very large families parented younger siblings. Read, man. Please read the book, LOST CHILDHOODS, THE PLIGHT OF THE PARENTIFIED CHILD by Gregory J. Jurkovic. But it is not use talking to you about the perils and detriments of the large/very large families. It is analogous to a Roman discussing culture to a Hun.
(I think gmwilliams is a woman, J-C-R.
Thanks for your input. We will never change her mind!)
YOU AREN'T going to change my mind. Hell's bells! I believe in the small family and see NOTHING wrong with the small family. I totally abhor the large/very large family for the reasons aforementioned. Thankfully and hopefully, the large/very large family will become extinct soon. Large/very large family my a$$ets! Large/very large families are more suited to more agrarian times, not today. Boy, I am in Bizarro World! Keep your large/very large family! Small families are BEST; any intelligent and educated person would agree!
LOL Kathryn, I think now that I read back through, you're right. I am not attacking his or her beliefs ...simply stating truth and fact. Incidentally, I don't need to quote a book for my life knowledge, as I have lived the situation myself. Im through arguing... My mother always taught me never to argue with a fool, as they will simply drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. That said I am unfollowing this thread so it will stop cluttering up my email. Miss Kathryn, lovely reading your posts.
I AM NO FOOL. I am cognizant of the fact that large/very large families are inherently evil. Maybe you should have mingled with the large families I know who were poor and impoverished. You would have a different, more intelligent perspective of how large/very large families are detrimental to all involved, especially the children. Again, this is like a Roman discussing civilization to a Hun, pointless indeed!
Back at you, as my late father would see that some people are HARD to understand and learn. The large/very large family is problematic in its conception and context. Children suffer in large/very large families but there is no use in discussing such issues with people like you and Kathryn who see only positives in large/very large family life although there was an admittance by Joshua that there was socioeconomic struggle.
I AM NO FOOL. I am cognizant of the fact that large/very large families are inherently evil. Maybe you should have mingled with the large families I know who were poor and impoverished. You would have a different, more intelligent perspective of how large/very large families are detrimental to all involved, especially the children. Again, this is like a Roman discussing civilization to a Hun, pointless indeed!
Or maybe YOU should mingle with families that are large, loving affluent and well-educated. Your posts seem rather one-sided and lacking in the ability to recognize situations that fall outside of your limited experience.
Let's be real, there are hardly any large/very large families that are affluent and educated. In all my years on this earth, the large/very large families I have encountered, including my EXTENDED family members, were socioeconomically disadvanted, oftentimes below poverty, uneducated, and living in conditions that even a homeless person would not live in. The large/very large families I knew lived in projects, wore castoff clothing, depended upon donations to keep them afloat, NEED I SAY MORE! NOT AT ALL. END OF DISCUSSION.
So limited experience means you are right? That's curious.
So, I dated a guy from Pureto Rico once who got violent. Now, I never deduced that all Puerto Ricans were violent... should I have?
Again, just because you have formed judgements from your own bad experiences doesn't mean they are correct. Obviously, you are wrong in at least three cases just from this thread. Imagine what would happen if you actually looked outside of your preconceived notions.
It is not preconceived. I observed such large/very large families. Please PAY ATTENTION to what I have said, Melissa! I will NEVER change my opinions regarding the status of the average/typical large family. What is said about such families are true to the multillionth degree. People know that they had bad experience in large/very large families but they rationalize it away i.e. they deny such experiences or sugarcoat it. Get real!
You've seen all of them then? Or most of them? Or even a fraction of a percent of them? Good to know.
You've seen a few large families in a limited area under contrived circumstances. Good for you. How big was that sampling again? Nevermind, I'm sure it was very thorough and quite big enough for you to judge every single large family as evil...
Again... proof? Any? Any at all? Seriously, can you not bring one single study or statistic to the table? We should all go on your word... because you aren't seeming biased or overly invested at all?
And I don't care really if you change your opinions... like I said, not one single woman is going to change her reproductive plans because of them... so why would any of us be threatened?
Melissa, there is nothing but opinion in the writing and the comments.... this author just hates people...bottom line.
To say that all large families are evil is like saying that all Mexicans are illegal immigrants, or all white people would own slaves....it's a gross misjudgement based on very limited experiences....I come from a large family...most of my dad's 11 brothers and sisters have large families...some with 12 or more...most of my friends growing up came from families of 5 to 10.... I know large family life...it's not bad....I never felt lonely as a child. I never felt neglected... and I never felt like my quality of life was bad. No sugar coating here...just plain truth from someone who doesn't need to read a book on the subject...but is very seriously considering writing one.
I know that. If she had any proof she would have produced it. I'm glad your family is happy That's all that matters. If someone else doesn't like it, well honestly who the hell cares? I don't live my life according to what angry people on the internet say and I seriously doubt anyone else does either. She can "advocate" all she wants, like I said, it isn't going to stop a single woman from planning the family she wants. Nor should it.
If you write that book, send me a link. I'll read it
Also give me a link. Haven't read a fantasy book in years. Then I will show it to my circle of friends, they will also find the book unbelievable to say the least. My friend who is a licensed social worker specializing in impoverished large/very large families will shake their heads in disbelief on this one.
I have a friend that build time machines. Really, you can believe me on that cause I said so. And since that friend builds time machines, I am also an expert by association.
Links please? Proof? Anything? Really... give me anything to in any way make anything you say have any weight other than "some woman on the internet says big families are bad because she read a book and her friend says so, so they must be" Otherwise... really not seeing a whole lot of credibility to your opinions.
I do not go by the internet but actual experience from those from large/very large families including extended family. I have read books such CHILD POVERTY IN LARGE FAMILIES, AND THE POOR GET CHILDREN, and THE PARENTIFIED CHILD. I also did college studies on large famlies on my sociology class which included in having 20 children from large/very large families speak in class. Also interfaced with such children as a hospital volunteer especially on abuse cases. Also worked with teens from poor large families on summer jobs. So I KNOW WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT. As a good friend informed me that people from large/very large famlies love to rationalize their lives, ah the art of DENIAL. Taking to stone walls here. Some people WON'T listen. Live in your large family world.
I worked as a social worker for families with children with developmental delays for 5 years, took the same classes as you and have been involved with large families as part of the homeschool community for 13 years. I also worked as a CASA advocate, work as a volunteer for RDVIC and have served/serve on several committees regarding childhood development and education, many at the state level.
So I know what I am talking about too.
A good friend (actually a psychology professor, but good friend sounds much more authoritative) once told me that people often rationalize their stereotypical beliefs because of limited negative experiences and ignorance of other situations than their own. They are often in denial that their sweeping generalizations of millions of people based on a sampling from a limited group are neither logical or accurate. Some people won't listen though. Prejudice is a tough nut to crack like that.
I know people from large families in addition to studying and reading about large/very large families. I can write a book on the large/very large families from what my parents, aunts, uncles, and assorted people state. I also volunteered in hospitals where I interacted with children and teens from such families and it WASN'T pretty!
Typical large family inference. I do not hate people at all. One does not have to live crowded to be happy. I just believe that the large/very large familiy is totally unnecessary. There is nothing wrong with having smaller families. People from small families are beautiful and intelligent people. Why are you glorify the large/very large family when it is inherently wrong. People from large/very large families have an inverse psychology and mindset that normal people do not have. Do you know anyone from a small family?
When you write that book, you might actually want to throw in some facts. People like facts. Verifiable facts. Ones they can actually prove rather than saying they read it in a book somewhere. That's kinda like saying you saw it on facebook.
Quote: "Just because you read it on the Internet doesn't mean it's true." ~ Abraham Lincoln
Please read works of Margaret Sanger on the evils of large/very large family life. What Joshua presented applies only to a minority of large families. The average large/very large family range from poor to poverty and sometimes below poverty. She was advocating the necessity for reliant contraception in order to provide children with a better quality of life. Both of you glorify the large family all you want. Do you know what people think of those who willingly have large families in this day and age? It isn't pretty at all. I know some of such people. I am nice compared to what they would say. Look especially at
LOL Do you seriously expect me to live my life based on what people think? What would have become of the black people if William Wilberforce or Abraham Lincoln had caved in to their peers? What would have happened to America had George Washington given in to pressure to surrender to the English?
If you live your life seeking the approval of those around you, you will find you always fall short of someone's expectations. I prefer to live my life the way I am shown to be the right way. I don't need public opinion to seek my path. I need only to know my conscience is clean. Again, I am not saying a large family is for everyone...in fact, it is not. But, for those who choose to have large families, I ask you...who made you God that you should decide who is worthy and who is not?
I live for my own approval. However, forget other peope, there are some things that are wrong. Why have a large family in this day and age? This is not agrarian society where children are needed to work the land. This is a highly urbanized society where small families are more fitting. That is all I am saying. Why be obsessed with large families. Forget it, have gazillion children for all I care!
Why have a large family? Um, because some people want a large family. Some people don't want any children. Some want one, two or three. Since it's not you decision, you don't need to understand it or approve of it.
Most large families I know wanted to have large families because they loved children and wanted a lot of them. That is completely their choice and absolutely none of anyone else's business any more than it's anyone's business why someone only wanted one child.
Now, THAT'S something I totally concur with. God bless you Melissa. It was a good argument and no hard feelings towards you and Joshua. Have a Blessed Night to both of you. In all serious, Joshua write that book, it will be a bestseller. Done posting on this subject.
I noticed in a post you placed above that you said large families are a breeding ground for poverty and they encourage criminal activity....what about John Dillinger...with only 1 sister? Public enemy #1. Or Jeffrey Dahmer with his lone brother...? Like I said, you simply are not wide enough in your scope. I can demonize any ethnic or social group I choose, if I limit my scope. For instance, I could say that all Baptist are hateful and cruel, if I use Westboro Baptist Church as my example. (A well known hate organization that is anything but Christian in nature.) Or, I could say that all Catholic priests are child molesters...after all a few of them have indeed been caught doing things they shouldn't do. But, it is wrong to make the entire group of people look bad because of the actions of a few...and that my friend is why I take such serious affront to this article. You would not want me to call your friends who support abortion butchers because of the doctor in Philadelphia who was throwing infant remains down the garbage disposal....so I do not want to see pieces that demonize my social group simply because someone you knew or read about somewhere had a rough go of it. The article is based solely on your limited scope and not on the entire picture...you paint a picture of misery, yet fail to portray the truth that the current wealth America is experiencing was brought about by large families.
Wasn't Sanger the woman who wanted women to be the masters of their own body? How would she feel about you wanting to be the master of every woman's body.
I've read Sanger's stuff. Other than leaning towards eliminating poor people by sterilizing whole groups based on their economic standing and race and only allowing rich white women the right to have children... her speaking on large families were those who didn't have information or the ability to control how many children they had.
You are coming down on women who choose to have large families.
There's a difference.
In addition, there is absolutely no way you can be inferring your ideas about "no need in today's society" from the works of a woman who was in her dotage before my parents were even thought of.
I seriously think I will write a book, entitled "My Great Big Happy Family".... the honest truth is, I do not demonize small families at all. I have to say anything negative about them. I simply don't like someone throwing their opinion about large families around based on second hand experience. I most definitely did not lead a sheltered life, in fact I led a broad and well traveled life, if anything. I'm not saying it's wrong to have a small family...I simply said it is wrong to tell someone else what they should and should not have when you're on the outside looking in.
Again, your facts are wrong...I cite an article by F. A. Woods, who did a study on successful families....turns out, larger families are successful... here's the link.
http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/conten … 71.extract
Again I cite Rockefeller, Kennedy, Perot, Bush, and many other very powerful families that have multiple children. You state your opinion as fact and when faced with TRUTH you can not admit you're wrong and you simply hate big families. I feel sorry for someone who has as much bitterness stored up inside themselves. Surely this will lead to loneliness later in life, if it has not already... To say that large families are "inherently evil" is a fallacy, and it is sad that one with so much education could be so limited in their scope.
Incidentally...the Romans were extremely civilized, what with crucifixions, boiling in oil, wild sexual orgies (which did not involve birth control incidentally), and their constant need to overpower any countries around them.... Strong human rights activists they were.
Kathryn, again no hard feelings. This thread is yours with Melissa and Joshua to do with as you will.
No hard feelings. That is the most important thing in foruming. To be objective rather than subjective. It is very good practice for real life. Staying in a position of objectivity has saved me recently in heated discussions regarding child rearing. So many mothers today just do not want ANY advice what-so-ever… no matter what another's credentials and experience… oh, that is a new topic… C YA.
by Grace Marguerite Williams2 years ago
According to a 2006 police report, Joshua Duggar, the Duggar's oldest child, has been accused of hild molesting underage girls when he was a teenager. As a result of the unearthed police report and the ensuing...
by Grace Marguerite Williams2 years ago
The large family of 6 or more children is becoming outmoded. The large family usually have a diametrically different culture and milieu to that of the small family. Parental interaction is rare...
by DinoMommy21 months ago
I'm just wondering what people thought about them....
by Justamama5 years ago
Anyone here have a "large family"?What is considered large?I have ten.
by Stacie L3 years ago
After suffering a devastating miscarriage in December 2011, Michelle Duggar is trying to get pregnant again with her 20th child. The 19 Kids and Counting reality TV mom says she and husband Jim Bob Duggar are hoping to...
by moneyfairy3 years ago
Do you think a woman with more than 8 children has a mental problem?Isn't it just a little insane to have so many children? Unless you are a gazillionaire how on earth could you afford so many children? And how much...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.