Irresponsible Parents....YES, They Do.....EXIST

1. 82

   gmwilliamsposted 3 years ago

   
   Why do people have children, knowing that they CAN'T afford to give them a life beyond impoverishment, scarcity, & struggle?  Such "parents" know that they can't provide their children cultural, educational, intellectual, & socioeconomic opportunities like normal parents do for their children. Why do such irresponsible, immature parents have children on a whim, unplanned, not caring about how their selfish acts affect their families' & particularly their children's futures?
   
   What separates irresponsible, immature people who have large families, not caring one iota about the use of family planning from mature, intelligent, & responsible parents who believe & practice family planning, knowing that such practice is beneficial for their & their children's quality of life? What are your thoughts on irresponsible, selfish, unintelligent, & immature "parents"  who continuously have children, not caring one iota about the welfare of their children but only their immature needs, condemning their children to want & impoverishment?
   

   replyreport
   1. 79

      Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      From the people that I have met, the desire to have children is not always a rational process. It may be well emotional and hard wired into people, the desire to procreate.

      replyreport
      1. 82

         gmwilliamsposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         Credence2, exactly. You are an extremely intelligent person whom I admire.  "Parents" who have large families aren't rational.  They can be classified as irrational.  They are of the lowest common denominator.  There are also psychological issues involved?  Such mothers have NO outside hobbies, friends, or interests so they channel this energy into becoming proliferate reproducers.  They have an infantile need to create but instead of using constructive means via hobbies & more cultural pursuits, they just breed unthinkingly. 
         
         "Parents" of large families have different mindsets than normal parents of small families.  Parents of large families have a more backward purview of life.  They just accept life as it is.  They are content to live in negative circumstances.  They revel in poverty, seeing nothing wrong w/having children in the same, abject circumstances.   I have written many articles on the negativities of large families.   
         
         These "parents" clearly don't care about the welfare of their children.  Their children are backwards in comparison to normal children of small families.  By observation & study, children from large families are more backwards culturally, intellectually, & educationally than children from small families who are more advanced.   Children from large families believe that poverty is great & don't want to do better themselves.  I have seen this in children from large families. 
         
         From my observation & by studying the family,  "parents" of large families aren't so intelligent or educated.  In fact, they are THE LEAST intelligent & educated; if they weren't, they wouldn't have large families that they can't support beyond struggle.   Credence2, the overwhelming majority of large families receive OUTSIDE aid as their parents CAN'T afford to support them normally.   Large families = poverty.   However, the average large family GLORIFY, even DEIFY impoverishment, seeing it as a normative lifestyle.   Just observe people from large families & they have the attitude that poverty is FANTASTIC.  They are also suspicious & jealous of those from small families who have more affluent lifestyles.  I have seen this among people from large families.  Yes,  "parents" of large families could care less about their children, they have children willy nilly.  If that isn't the height of unintelligence, irresponsibility & immaturity, what is?   "Parents" of large families have deep psychological issues.  If they didn't, they would have small families so that their children would have brighter futures.   
         
         Thank you Credence2 for your intelligent input.  "Parents" of large families exist at the lowest common level which is primitive.  You are correct in your premise.  "Parents" of large families don't think nor plan, they are just instinctive like lower life forms.  "Parents" of large families aren't parents but in name only.  One would call them childish.  Such "parents" assume childlike roles while forcing their children to be adults FAR BEFORE they are ready.  Large families are ABUSIVE & TOXIC unlike small families which are LOVING, ENRICHING, & ENCOURAGING.
         

         replyreport
         1. 79

            Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

            Well, you brought up a thought provoking idea, Grace, and it deserves discussion.
            
            I don't know if you can say large families are irrational. Not so much in America but elsewhere, large families are insurance policies to parents that there will be someone around to care for them in old age. Before FDR and Social Security, that may well have been true here in the USA.
            
            You can read about a society where women were basically incubator machines and the short comings of women that produced large families were basically true as a cultural norm for all woman according to Fridan's "Feminine Mystique".  How much of that is a factor in all of this?
            
            Parents that have large families are not necessarily irresponsible, if they have the means to support the children.
            
            The urge to procreate and "play house" can take the place of rational family planning, particularly for the young and fertile.
            
            Again, the attitude toward poverty that you say is found from children of large families is relative. What if your parents are wealthy?
            
            You would have to tell the Catholic parents that they are not to bright when "family planning" takes second fiddle to bringing to term all pregnancies.
            
            I think poverty is just as certain as if you had one child over 3 if through lack of education and such you are only qualified to work at Burger King.
            
            Education and the ability to earn by the parents is the key for successful families and subsequently, successful and well adjusted children
            
            Yet, There not many at their most fertile stages in life who have the education and income to not consider the consequence of uncontrolled procreation and its economic impact.

            replyreport
            1. 82

               gmwilliamsposted 3 years agoin reply to this

               Credence2, large families were fine for more rural, agrarian times when hands were needed to work the land.   Today with advanced birth control, there is no excuse whatsoever to have large families.   Having large families is atavistically primitive in a computerized society.   One child, perhaps two children per family is enough.   Large families means impoverishment.  Observe large families & they are barely surviving.   Large families oftentimes depend upon outside sources via relatives, charities, & the government to stay afloat.  It is absolutely asinine to have large families.  Children in large families don't have the cultural, intellectual, educational, & socioeconomic opportunities that is present for children in normal, small families.  Large families are an aberration to say the least.   "Parents" of large families have psychological issues which ought to be addressed by a qualified psychologist, even psychiatrist.  There is so much to make the world better i.e. have constructive hobbies, volunteer to help needy children, & pursue cultural activities than to mindlessly pop out children only for those children to struggle & be in want because of the utter stupidity of immature "parents".  One has to be totally intellectually challenged to the point of being borderline  to have large families in a post-computerized society.

               replyreport
               1. 73

                  Miebakagh57posted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  Married with 6 children and lives in my house, build by me, in a city. Good for me.

                  replyreport
            2. 73

               Miebakagh57posted 3 years agoin reply to this

               Some truth worthy of consideration. The view point is balanced.                                         They was a certain moslem man in Nigeria. He had 60 wivies and more 100 children. His is a super-large and extraordinary family. He house them in a palace he build. Join me to congratulate him on this feat! But he warn others not to copy him.

               replyreport
         2. 75

            Castlepalomaposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            A successful life I think takes a balance of financial, intellectual, spiritual, relationship and physical.
            
            GM you seem more obsess with relationships and financial areas. It's like if everyone were financial middle class or wealthy that would balance America families living best. Also lowering the world population would solve most of human kinds problems. I don't know how much this has to do with American black families and your own. As American black families have the highest in poverty and highest in birth rate in the US. Plus Africa leads the world in population growth, by 2050 Africa with double their population. Although would add africa is also one of the fastest growing economies in the world. Unfortunately most of the wealth in black America and Africa areas are being unbalanced by the invasion of the wealthiest corporation.

            replyreport
            1. 82

               gmwilliamsposted 3 years agoin reply to this

               Not obsessed at all but observant.   Yes, poverty aligned with large families cause most of the problems.   If people were minimally solidly middle class & had small families, many societal problems would be reduced, if not eliminated.   Large families are correlated w/high poverty rates & high poverty rates are correlated with crimes & other acts of societal deviancy.  Large families reach all racial & ethnic groups but most in the lower socioeconomic classes i.e. the underclass, lower, working & lower middle classes.  These are the groups with the least education & largest families.  Solidly middle, upper middle, & upper classes are the most educated & have the smallest families.   Yes, Africa has the HIGHEST birth rates of all continents but w/higher education & teaching of contraception, the population rate will decrease as the more educated a population is, THE MORE LIKELY they will have small families.  It is the LESS EDUCATED of all races/ethnic groups who have THE LARGEST families.

               replyreport
               1. 75

                  Castlepalomaposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  North America is still over focus on the American dream and financial to solve most of their problems. Our own family, the internet and books are about the best source for selfhelp and to find samples of better lifestyles. There is no one system that will fit all, although shared work ethics will motivate the world's future.
                  The most damaged I have ever experienced in tbis lifetime is the handling of this planedemic where more people are becoming more wise to.
                  The world will change itself, just doing the best I can.

                  replyreport
         3. 73

            Miebakagh57posted 3 years agoin reply to this

            Here's a further challenge for study. Have you seen certain parents have only one or two children and are poor? Do search beyound the post, and I'm sure you can find one or two.                                                      IHMO, parents with one, two, or three child are not always or necesarily progress. I've seen such. They still exists. You post need re-checking.                                    Some parents actually realised that they're poor, and acknowledge the fact. But by having many childrens hope one or two of the child can advance to save the family. It works. While in certain cases, the whole family remain poor.

            replyreport
            1. 82

               gmwilliamsposted 3 years agoin reply to this

               Did studies on small families in college & read books on families.  There are very, very few poor small families.  However, there IS a VERY LARGE percentage of POOR, LARGE families.  Maybe you want to avoid reality but  THE TRUTH IS-that THE MAJORITY of large families are poor to downright impoverished.  There are HARDLY ANY IMPOVERISHED SMALL FAMILIES.  Hate to burst your bubble!!!    It is downright unintelligent into inane to have LARGE families in post-computerized societies.  Intelligent, educated people USE birth control, they don't mindlessly breed like lower life forms. "Parents" who have large families are irresponsible, even abusive.   Responsible parents have SMALL families that they can provide for beyond struggle & poverty.  Studies authenticate that "parents" who have large families are less intelligent & less educated, even uneducated while parents who have small families are highly educated & intelligent. 
               
               
               
               
               The MORE educated a woman IS, the smaller the family.  The LESS educated a woman IS, the larger the family.   Less educated, uneducated women have THE LARGEST families. Studies prove that it is the LEAST INTELLIGENT humans who have LARGE families.

               replyreport
               1. 75

                  Castlepalomaposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  I wouldn't oppose a family law to keep under three kids. They kept under two children in China for 20 years.

                  replyreport
                  1. 91

                     MizBejabbersposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                     Yes, they did, and look what happened. The one family-one child law produced fewer female children because the Chinese preferred boys whom they believed could or would support them in their old age. China found itself with over 30 million surplus boys. This has also been accused of being a factor in the rising crime rate.
                     
                     
                     "While crime has been soaring, the one-child policy, along with a strong preference of Chinese parents for sons over daughters, has resulted in there being approximately 120 boys for every 100 girls in China, or 30 million “surplus” boys."
                     
                     https://ifstudies.org/blog/chinas-one-c … 9D%20boys.
                     
                     So, we shouldn't be too quick to pat the Chinese on the back for holding down its birth rate. I believe in a woman's right to choose, but I don't believe in using abortion as the right to choose the sex of a child.
                     
                     I also don't believe that the government should legislate that a woman can't choose to terminate a pregnancy because she believes that an abnormal child will adversely affect her family. States, including my own, right now are passing laws to prohibit aborting Downs Syndrome fetuses.
                     
                     I realize this is a little off topic, but it is the antithesis of the topic and shows what happens when we go in the other direction of irrational childbirth.

                     replyreport
                     1. 75

                        Castlepalomaposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                        Over population is a serious problem. It be better in the hands of the people rather than our owner scams.

                        replyreport
                        1. 82

                           gmwilliamsposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                           +100000000000000000000000000

                           replyreport
                        2. 73

                           Miebakagh57posted 3 years agoin reply to this

                           @Mizbejabbers & Castlepaloma: I believe if the Chinese authority want to control population explosion of their country, the best method is to let each family make use of plan parenthond(PP) independently.                                             I had six children(3 boys, 3 girls) by PP menthod. The second and third child spaced 2 and 3 years respectively. The 4th and 5th were by a space of 6 and 7 years respectively. The first three are financially independent. I am just taking the education of the last three a priority.                                                 The Chinese policy of one child, one parent, and later the addition of two childs did not solve matter. It is capitalist in outlook. Family planning is a law of demand and supply which Malthus, nor 20 century politico-economic scientists understood                                           In Africa, a very rich man can marry more than 5 wives and bear more than 3 childrens from each wife. He gives them the best education and empowers them.

                           replyreport
                           1. 75

                              Castlepalomaposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                              Agree.
                              Its also a global issue.

                              replyreport
                              1. 73

                                 Miebakagh57posted 3 years agoin reply to this

                                 You're welcome.

                                 replyreport
                              2. 91

                                 MizBejabbersposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                                 It is a global issue because the more people there are, the more raw materials are used up and more waste products are generated, thus more contamination to the planet. Before you pat these rich people on the back for having large families and being able to support them, just remember:  When there is no food available, even money can't buy food. If one is hungry, it doesn't matter whether he lives in a palace or a hut.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 75

                                    Castlepalomaposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                                    More people die of obesity than starvation in the world. Generally globally the birth rates have declined greatly and life expectancy have been rising, except in the US. I live holistic in a tiny castle without the hassle.
                                    
                                    If we don't hold the world to a two child limit. The only other way is we all go gay.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 82

                                       gmwilliamsposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                                       I believe that a 1-2 child limit should be IMPOSED w/penalties applied to those who irresponsibly elect to have LARGE families.  Clearly in this day & age, large families are an anachronism from an earlier age.  People don't need to have LARGE families.  1-2 children per family are BEST- for the educational, intellectual, emotional, & socioeconomic benefit of ALL.   Small families make for progressive, affluent societies.   It doesn't take a rocket scientist to observe that countries with the LARGEST populations are the countries who are the MOST IMPOVERISHED. Large families equal poverty while small families equal prosperity.

                                       report
                                       1. 75

                                          Castlepalomaposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                                          I get your power point about over size families overall health.
                                          
                                          They wont allow gays to adopt all our unwanted children

                                          report
                                    2. 91

                                       MizBejabbersposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                                       I think that depends on whose definition of obesity you use. I am a size 8 petite, yet by standard weight charts I am a little overweight, like 10 to 15 lbs. However, 23andme classified me as "obese" (29% body fat, they said). Yet doctors tell people my age to "carry a little extra weight" for emergencies, like cancer or other serious illness. If I died today, would they classify obesity as a contributing factor? It just depends upon whom you ask.
                                       
                                       During the late 20th Century, the recommended norm was "to replace yourself and your spouse". In other words, a recommended two child limit. That's what my first husband and I stuck to, not because they recommended it, but because it is what we thought we could afford and properly take care of. Most of the people we knew had no more than three children, and usually one of them was an "oops."
                                       I'm not sure that society worried about overpopulation very much until people from other countries that had no stops on childbearing began to immigrate here. Then the concerns began when many of these large families started requiring government help to finance their broods.

                                       report
                                       1. 82

                                          gmwilliamsposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                                          Mizbejabbers, you are very succinct in your analysis of the situation at all.
                                          The average large/very large families, even among Americans, have to depend upon outside assistance to keep them afloat.   No large/very large family is self-sustaining.  They need OUTSIDE help to stay afloat whether it is relatives, charities, or government.   The average large/very large family is poor to impoverished.    Large families equal poverty.

                                          report
                                       2. 73

                                          Miebakagh57posted 3 years agoin reply to this

                                          I think America as Gods own country is extremely generous and takes the outsiders in. They then go for the whole arm.

                                          report
                                          1. 75

                                             Castlepalomaposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                                             You give our owners an inch and they will take a mile.

                                             report
                                             1. 73

                                                Miebakagh57posted 3 years agoin reply to this

                                                On the part of my country Nigeria, there are these ethnic group call the Ikwerre. Dare to give him a finger, and he'll take the whole arm.                                                    This has been a sore grouse between the Okrikas and the Ikwerres from 1913 to data.

                                                report
                                                1. 75

                                                   Castlepalomaposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                                                   Then it's the same, all over the world. It's just bigger bullies gather to unite their gang mentally. The way to beat a bully is to be bigger, better, faster and smarter.

                                                   report
                                                   1. 73

                                                      Miebakagh57posted 3 years agoin reply to this

                                                      Cool.

                                                      report
                                 2. 73

                                    Miebakagh57posted 3 years agoin reply to this

                                    In contrast, India, has enough cow to sell and feed the world. But will she sell?                                           Agreed that money can't buy a food when not available. So the rich and the poor cannot eat?

                                    replyreport
               2. 73

                  Miebakagh57posted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  I may agree with you on the college and book studies you have made. Perhaps, it is a project study under the supervision of a profesor.                                             That being the case, have you ever under taken an independent field study to argument your college and book studies?                                      Small family studies are important. So are large familes. In  China for example, a family is limited to two kids. Now if the first child is a girl, she was secretly murder! They want a boy.                                                              Now listen. My poor parent bear seven kids and I am first on line. I graduate B A. The second B Ed. The third and fourth Associate degrees. The rest were all graduates. I build my house with my money. So are the others. The subjects were the offspring of partial educate poor parents, right? Such cases still abound. To ignore them can translated to ignoring certain realities.

                  replyreport
                  1. 75

                     Castlepalomaposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                     Good for you.
                     In my early years we donated care packages and they sent to the poor African families.
                     As Africa economic growth rapidly grows. Rather than kicking our care packages into your pools, Send some back to us. We got 250,000 homeless people here.

                     replyreport
                     1. 73

                        Miebakagh57posted 3 years agoin reply to this

                        Dud, you're welcome. I found this for you: 'wiral amputee selling bottle water rewarded'. Google the quote because I do not deem it fit to provide a link.

                        replyreport
         4. 91

            MizBejabbersposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            I agree with you on this, as far as education and background go, but you left out one thing: the religion of some of them. To these people it is "God's will" as to whether or not each intimate act brings a pregnancy. To them it is a sin to use birth control. Many of them are the backbone of the pro-life movement. Now if the church that declares birth control a sin (except for the Russian roulette rhythm method, of course) would step up and take responsibility for these pregnancies that they cause, there would be fewer hungry children living in poverty. Education does seem to be taking care of a lot of that though. I've noticed that more educated members of this church are having fewer "unplanned" pregnancies, and I'm sure it isn't thanks to more accurate monthly record keeping.

            replyreport
2. 67

   MG Singhposted 3 years ago

   In China, the one-child norm was for 25 years and it was not two children. This has led to a demographic problem as the older people are now more than the younger people and a morale problem for the Chinese army where the one son syndrome is playing hell into the morale.

   replyreport
   1. 82

      gmwilliamsposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      People CREATE their own problems.   Poor people CREATE their poverty through irresponsible decisions.  Poor people DON'T want anything other than poverty.  If they did, they wouldn't be poor.  Poor people are inculcated to be poor & that being poor is great.  Poor people view improvement & wealth as abnormalities.  They are anti-achievement & teach their children not to achieve.   Observe lower, middle, & upper class people.   Poor people want nothing; however, middle & upper people are ALWAYS improving themselves.   I am talking about  America.

      replyreport
      1. 79

         Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

         I can't say that people create their own problems all the time, the unexpected and unanticipated could affect anyone of us.
         
         The vast majority of people are one paycheck away from being poor. People in this culture have this mom and Apple pie American attitude that hard work is its own reward and success is guaranteed based on ones ability and desire to work hard. That is a fairy tale at least as much as it can be reality.
         
         I would add, though, these days that it is more important to work smart over working hard, properly relegating and levering resources for the best outcome.
         
         I don't think that anyone really wants to be poor, it is naive to think that any one of us can control all the variables as to whether or not we have that status in life.
         
         Bad decisions in life, or bad luck could find you in such a state. You could have been laid off from a job paying a middle class income, for older people it has proven difficult to get a comparable position, forcing a reduction in the standard of living the no one would have anticipated.
         
         All of the poor are not necessarily lazy or immoral, they are just poor for a moment or for some, moments longer.
         
         Scriptures say that the poor will always be among us, and you know what, they are. It is simply not possible in a capitalist system like this one for everyone to be prosperous and at the top of the heap.
         
         Sometimes, you can make a mistake in life, one that may have lifetime consequences, making the hill upward just that more steep. And forgive those for living that may find it difficult to traverse the way up.

         replyreport
         1. 82

            gmwilliamsposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            Credence2, my dear friend,  I used to believe what you have stated about the poor when I was a child.  However, through deep analysis & observation, I came to the realization that most poor people in America want to be poor.  They perform actions which cause them to be poor.  That is the reality of the situation.
            
            Poor parents are vastly different from their solidly middle, upper middle, & upper class counterparts.  By poor, I am including 4 socioeconomic classes- the underclass, lower, working, & lower middle classes.   Poor parents don't believe in planning to have children, they JUST have them.  Then they have, on average, FAR MORE children than they can afford to properly care for & educate.   Poor parents & children have the INVERSE relationship of a normative parent-child relationship.  Poor parents assume the more infantile role while their children assume the more adult role.  In poor homes, there is very little to no intellectual nor cultural stimulation because such things aren't valued nor prized in poor environments.  Poor parents are also LESS LOVING & MORE ABUSIVE towards their children than parents who are more affluent i.e. solidly middle, upper middle, & upper class homes.
            
            Poor people imbue their children to be slaves, not to aspire to any great in life.  They teach their children to settle for crumbs.  Poor people don't believe in practicing the FEP principle when it comes to having & rearing children.  They are primitive, even animalistic in their dealings w/their children.  The FEP principle is not to have children until one is financially, emotionally, & psychologically prepared to do so. 
            
            Poor people marry FAR YOUNGER than people who are solidly middle, upper middle, & upper class.  They marry before they are established socioeconomically which increases their chance of impoverishment.   They also have a lot of children because in poor cultures, having a lot of children is normative.  They are basic people who don't value intellectual nor academic exercise.   I can tell whether a person comes from a poor/large families by their mannerisms & attitude towards life.  People who come from poor/large families aren't into education & the higher human needs- they remain at the lower level of human needs.  They are only into survival but never thriving.  One would classify such people as uncultivated at best & brutish at worst.  Poor people also aren't involved in their children's development -they permit their children to be unsupervised & feral.   It is quite normative in large/very large families to have unsupervised, feral children who lack basic home training.  Poor people want to have a TOXIC environment & they pass that toxicity to the next generation.  People make CHOICES- lie down w/dogs & one will get fleas goes the saying.

            replyreport
            1. 75

               Castlepalomaposted 3 years agoin reply to this

               If we don't help the poor up, the poor will drag us down. I'm so lucky to live my dreams all my adult life. Yet, won't be free unless I help the poor with their dreams and teach them how to fish. Government mainly just gives them a fish and it is getting worst with stinky fish and they live with fleas.

               replyreport
      2. 73

         Miebakagh57posted 3 years agoin reply to this

         Is America the only country in the world breeding poor people? The poor abound in every continent. They shall never cease out of the earth.

         replyreport
   2. 75

      Castlepalomaposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      That was under two children and maybe it was for 25 years. I wouldn't care about army's unless one wants to kill more people.

      replyreport
   3. 73

      Miebakagh57posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Is China, a capitalist or socialist state? From all indications, it is social-communism.                                      But why did the Chinese Authorities beamed a capitalist search light to the Chinese social system? I mean the one family, one child policy is derived from capitalistic.                                                                    They attemp to control population explosion by exploitive method, instead of family planning cause more problem.                                   I believe in family planning. It is an economic principle of choice, want, and scarcity.                          ,

      replyreport
      1. 75

         Castlepalomaposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         From being in china a few times.
         China feel stronger socialist and capitalism.
         John Bradshaw, a family-systems therapy advocate and family dynamics expert, cites research that found 96 percent of all families to be to some degree 'dysfunctional'—that is, the system by which the family interacts is distorted by the addictions and compulsions of one or more members
         
         Can't imagine how to handle 6 children, yet you don't seem to complain about them.

         replyreport
         1. 73

            Miebakagh57posted 3 years agoin reply to this

            I'm a one man one wife guy. If I had my way, I would increase. It is an economic question of choice where scarcity and wants exists side by side.                                          My wife does not want to take in again and respecting hei wishes, we're under plan parendhood. So enjoying all the love making..

            replyreport
            1. 75

               Castlepalomaposted 3 years agoin reply to this

               Happy wife, happy life.
               Wanting one, sort of.

               replyreport
               1. 73

                  Miebakagh57posted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  Agreed. You're welcomed.

                  replyreport