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 time would you really have to spend with them ?
Just curious if anyone else thinks it's bizzare.
Like : Kate plus 8, Octomom and there was an article on a woman in Utah with like 13 children and she was still wanting more???How healthy can that be for those womans bodies? It's just so very odd. Interested in hearing your opinions.
Good morning moneyfairy, I have written hubs on large families. I believe that in this postmodern day and age of advanced contraception, large families are a thing of the past. In preurban, rural, and agragrian societies, large families were necessary as extra children were needed to work the hand and to provide care for aging parents and create other social networks to support unmarried, aged, and/or disabled relatives who cannot care for themselves either financially and/or psychologically. However, with the increased urbanization of society, large families were beginning to be viewed as a detriment, especially to the mother and children.
Many women who have large families are so in love with the concept of having children that they are not thinking about the ramifications of their actions on their children. They believe in the philosophy whatever comes what may when it comes to their children. Many of these women oftentimes do not have any outside hobbies and/or interests to occupy their time. They feel that the way to fill that void and hunger is to have lots of children.
Then there are many traditionally religious women who maintain that the purpose of sex is the procreation of children. They contend that the use of contraception is quite unnatural. They believe that the number of children is preordained and should not be interfered with. Many women who have large families have baby hunger i.e. they love their newborn; however, once the child matures, he/she loses interest and wants to have another child and another.........and another.......
Of course, such women are so in love with the idea of having a "big family" and a "house full of children" that they fail to and/or do not wish to realize the ramifications of their actions. Oftentimes these women do not work thus placing the onus of socioecnomic support on the husband. The husband has undue strain supporting a large number of children. It is oftentimes a near impossibility for the husband/father to adequately support a large household.
This translates into the children going without even the basic necessities. If the latter want something extra, they must oftentimes get an afterschool and/or weekend job to obtain the object of their desire. In large families, there is very little money for the rudiments such as food, clothing, and shelter. Many times the children oftentimes have to consume less than nutritious food because such foods are expensive. They also have no medical/dental care because such things cost money. Many children from large families have to depend upon donations and charities for clothing as there is very little monies allocated for such.
In large families, there is more besides socioeconomic disadvantages. Parents cannot effectively raise a large number of children. This means that the oldest/older child,particularly daughters, have to raise their younger siblings. Evidences of such cases are the oldest/older Duggar daughters who are assigned to raise their younger siblings. Oldest children in large families have the most difficult and stressful life imaginable. Many have to forego normal, formative childhoods and adolescence as a result of raising younger siblings. This phenomena is called the parentified child.
Gregory J. Jurkovic, author of LOST CHILDHOODS, THE PLIGHT OF THE PARENTIFIED CHILD, discusses the subject in detail. Many parentified children lose their childhood, only to regain it later. Many parentified children have so much responsibility thrust upon them as children, that as adults they do not want any type of responsibility as they want to be uncumbered to live the lives that they should had have as children. Oldest/older sons have it just as hard as the oldest/older daughters, even more so. Many oldest/older sons in large families oftentimes have to forego their own education in order to get jobs to supplement the family income.
It is quite commonplace in large families for children to raise themselves as their parents are hardly available. If one can describe the condition of children in large families, it is benign neglect. In such systems, the oldest/older children are oftentimes on their own and ignored unless when something needs to be done while the youngest/ younger children are the ones who receive the most attention.
All intelligent and thinking people realize that it is unwise to have more children than one can support emotionally, psychologically, and socioeconomically. However, there are many people who are clueless to this, electing to have as many children as they possible can, regardless of the consequences to them and their children.
Jean - When we discuss most issues, it is helpful to be as specific as possible. The details of a situation are very important and may affect how we feel about a situation or event. What is the family income? Is the large family in the city or in the country? Are there relatives near by who want to be an active part of the family? Were the children spaced apart, all clumped together and were there any twins or triplets? Answers to all these questions would shed a great deal of light on whether a "large" family was healthy or not, good for the children or not.
I am not pointing a finger at you, but what I see in the lengthy and often very repetitive responses to your question is a lot of anger, arrogance, and narrow mindedness. Many, if not most of the comments either refer to generalities (there is no "general large family") or the comments are based on "personal family experience," which is very problematic ( no decent researcher or analyst would make comparisons and judgments based on one family or one situation).
No one's "personal family experience" can or should be used to evaluate and judge other families and situations. All families are different, all children are different. Being rude and bombastic and ranting and raving (not you) about a topic -- does not mean the person is right or correct. In fact it often means they have a hidden agenda or motive and emotion, rather than reason is driving their responses. I think your question was interesting and with a few more details and less emotional hysteria, a vert good conversation could have taken place. My best to you.
I would consider her success or failure purely by how well the children are cared for.
I know a full time foster and adoptive mother who has had that many children in her house at one time, and any child would be lucky to have her as a mother.
Some people are right for the job of parenting but how much quality time does a housefull of kids really get??And who ends up being the surrogate parent for their brothers or sisters, like gmwillams said above? Your friend sounds like one in a trillion.
I don't think it's bizarre at all!
My husband comes from a family of 9. It use to be the norm. If they can afford them and want them and they take care of their children nothing wrong with it. I think children in big families are happier. They have each other. They learn to help around the house. They aren't as spoiled. You can't compare big families to the ones you see on tv.
Exactly! If you can afford them and love and care for them go for it but most people with large families these days end up living on welfare as they can't afford all the children they have bought into the world and the children are the ones that suffer, the ones that aren't making money off t.v. shows.
No, they are not "spoiled", they are in all likelihood to be neglected and to raise themselves as they are bereft of parental attention. Children from large families are not happier. They do not have the prerequisite parental attention. There is no such thing as normal parent-child relationships in large families as they are in small families. Children in large families are not close to their parents as the latter are unavailable and distant from them. They are left to their own devices. The oldest child raise the younger ones, losing the important years in his/her childhood development.
In the large family system, the oldest child is on 24/7/365. I grew up with children from large families. THEY WERE NOT HAPPY AT ALL. In fact, THEY WERE QUITE MISERABLE. They complained that they had nothing. They also stated how stupid their parents were for putting them in such a predictament. They hated wearing old, castoff, and hand me down clothes and depending upon others to supplement their socioeconomic situation. One of the girls from a large family even tore up a dress from a classmate because she COULD NOT afford such a dress. You are QUITE MISTAKEN stating that children in large families are happier, they CLEARLY ARE NOT! Live in the real world.
Contrary to what you have stated, there are spoiled children in large families. They are-THE YOUNGEST CHILD. Youngest children in large families often do have any responsibilities in comparison to what the oldest children had at similar ages. Youngest children in large families can do what they want, come and go as they please without any consequences involved. They also have the LONGEST childhood in history while the oldest children have the SHORTEST childhood.
In large families, the OLDEST child is the unpaid chattel slave while the YOUNGEST child is the jewel, baby, and precious prince/princess in the family. At least in small families, there is an equal parity between siblings whereas in large families, there is a SEVERE UNEQUAL parity between sibings. Oldest children get the brunt, middle children fade into the background and are ignored, and the youngest has the BEST world imaginable. Remember if a person states that he/she LOVES being in a large family, he/she is THE YOUNGEST! Youngest children in large families are spoiled to the degree that children in small families ARE NOT!
The motivations here are the driving factors. Pick one of the following reasons, then decide if it is bizarre.
- More children brings you a high paying spot on a TV reality show. (Bizarre and greedy)
- More children means higher welfare checks. (Greedy and Selfish)
- More children means the Pope is happy. (Poverty)
Can you think of some more?
Thanks Don, I'm sure there are many more but the ones you have mentioned are major! Thanks!
How about abusive husbands that beat up and threaten to kill wives for not having several children (no TV, no welfare, not Catholic)? I know several cases of this right now in my county systems. Local police told me officers must see/hear the attacks before taking action and even then, the abused women are often not ready to leave and accept help (we've known the last part for decades). Accepting abuse is, indeed, a pych condition imo professionally, and so is this level of abusing others.
my Grandma had 15 kids so saying someone is mental is kind of rude. i know a couple who have 9 kids and they are awesome. judging people by how many kids they have could be mental though.
nightwork4: I am not judging anyone,but rather asking the opinons of others about excessivly, large families and if it is healthy for the mom and the children. And as many have stated here it doesn't seem so healthy, (mentally,emotionally physically and fiscally). It is just not a very responsible thing to do in this day and age. Maybe in your Grandmothers time she had plenty of time and money etc... to raise all of those children but in this time 2012 expenses of everything have gone up so high that just providing for oneself is difficult without bringing a bunch of kids in the mix. If you are a gaziilionaire and feel like having a ton of children go for it. But to barely just get by and live on welfare and hand me downs is not a responsible way to bring up children. Most intelligent and thinking people realize that it is unwise to have more children than one can provide for mentally emotionally and fiscally.Thank you for sharing your opinion.
Plenty of people have the means to raise a lot of kids. That is why I say it totally depends on the family.
my grandparents were dirt poor. money isn't everything and many people have little money, lots of kids and are happier then most.
They are in deep, deep, deep, deep denial. Large families= poverty. I went to school and was friends with children from large families. They were the poorest socioeconomically. They had poor nutrition and medical care as their parents could not afford it. They had little or no money for the rudiments.
Nightwork4, you could not be more fallacious regarding your premise! When children are poor and encounter more affluent children, there is bound to be resentment on the part of the former. Many time the children from large families hated and resented those more affluent children from small families because they had the things that the former did not.
Such children routinely asked us more affluent children to loan them pencils and notebooks because their parents could not afford to supply them with such. Once those items were "borrowed", they were never returned. One girl from such a large family routinely shook down the more affluent students for money for lunch and other things. The same girl tore up another girl's designer dress because she was envious of the girl, wishing that she had THAT dress.
Children in large families are not happier. In fact, they are sadder and resentful of their familial situation. In my elementary school, the one who did the most complaining were those from large families. They complained how their siblings got on their nerves. how they had no privacy, how they had to do without, how stupid their parents were for having so many children, how they could not go anywhere with the other children on school trips because there was no money allotted to do so.
Children from large families learn to resent those from small families because oftentimes they are more affluent than they are and have opportunities that they WILL NEVER have. Many people from large families purport that they are "happy" when in unguarded moments, they proclaim that their childhoods were indeed miserable in many ways. Children from large families in all likelihood will not have advanced educations because they are usually taken out of school to supplement their parents' meager incomes. Children from large families are more likely to be in poverty like their parents for all of their lives and they will pass this pattern until succeeding generations.
Parents who have large families are usually the ones who are the least educated and least socioeconomically able to provide for their children. The adage, the poor always have children is so true. Those who are affluent and educated are having small families, not large, because they have the intelligence to realize that children need to have a good quality of life emotionally, mentally, psychologically, and socioeconomically. Parents who have large families have something totally amiss with them, they need help!
Well said gmwilliams thank you for replying to nightwork4. Your last paragraph says it all!
How can tons of children be happy with next to nothing?? little or no attention paid to them, just getting by poverty mentality???Parents that work their fingers to the bone with little to no time for their children?? Where's the happiness? I don't get it nightwork 4? It just doesn't make sense.
Moneyfairy, this is called inverse logic. Inverse logic is when good is bad, bad is good. In other words, truths are falsehoods and falsehoods are truths. It what the late Dr. David R. Hawkins would call Luciferian logic. People are not happy living on next to nothing. Anyone who claims this have some type of delusional complex and is totally BSing. When you call them up on it, they go into attack mode i.e. defense mechanism, fruitlessly defending their negative lifestyle.
People need to tell the truth and not be in denial. Denial, denial denial ad infinitum. It is analagous to an abused woman stated that her signficant other is not "that bad", adding that "there were some good moments also." Please, please, please stop with the pretense, it is SO DIFFICULT for SOME PEOPLE to FACE REALITY. REALITY ISN'T PRETTY SOMETIMES BUT IT MUST BE FACED NEVERTHELESS IN ORDER TO HEAL EFFECTIVELY.
gmwilliams: I think it is a useless cause as they will always think they are right no matter how ridiculous it sounds. But thanks for trying. Thus the crazy/mental factor that seems to ilude them
Moneyfairy, I get attacked on the time regarding this. This has only made me more resolute. You have going to have many hubbers from large families and hubbers with large families who are going to go into attack mode. This is par for the course. Only a few hubbers from large families are GOING TO TELL THE UNADULETERED TRUTH, however, they are the RARE ONES. The majority are going to defend their inverse psychology and situation TO THE DEATH or UNTIL HELL FREEZES OVER! They KNOW that ALL IS LOST and THEIR WAY OF LIFE IS SLOWLY BECOMING EXTINCT.
Exactly!!! Well said!!! let them live in their delusions. It's sad the ignorance out there.
The sad ignorance in my opinion would be to change the facts to suit your theory, by accusing other hubbers of lying about their happy childhoods.
I don't see where anyone is accusing fellow hubbers of lying about their happy childhoods. The fact is that having 8+ children in this day and age is only hurting the children. Unless you are Angelina Jolie and have tons of money how can you properly care for that many children???
Did you read the last few comments. They say just that. In capital letters.
There is a difference between saying more children requires more resources and saying all large families are abusive and all mothers in them immoral. Which is indeed said in this thread multiples times.
The idea that my neighbor who devotes her life to caring for her fostered and adoptive family is an abuser just because she has eight kids is judgmental and prejudiced as it is based on some arbitrary number, not the job she is actually doing. The same applied to any family with eight kids. Or seven or whatever arbitrary number you want to use.
I applaud her for fostering children. However, the whole jist of this thread was to say that caring for that many children takes a lot of $$. If the children aren't fed properly, clothed properly, living in seperate bedrooms properly, the list goes on..... then there is a problem. It's people like Octomom that has mental problems and there are more Octomoms out there.
Living off the government is not the way to raise children.
I have no idea if she gets government money, her husband has a high income so she probably doesn't (certainly not for the adopted kids). Interesting that you immediately assumed she did.
You see a person living off the government. I see an affluent person taken in abused and neglected children so they can live in a loving home, not an institution. Basically, she is living her faith and happy to do it.
B.S. i'm not sure where you get your facts from but they are wrong. sure there are large families that suffer due to lack of money but the same can be said for small families. i know and i bet you do also, quite a few large families that are happy, the kids enjoy having many siblings and they are there for each other.no insult intended to anyone but money seems to be really important to some people on here to the point where if you don't have money, you're unhappy. it's a lie and that is that. i know families that are small, well off with very unhappy kids.
Wrong, wrong, wrong ad infinitum. The small families that I know are affluent, educated, successful, and happy. We had wonderful childhoods and adolescence. We were way beyond academically prepared for school. We had good to excellent grades. We were not problems in school. We were cultured and well behaved. We were allowed to have childhoods. We did not raise siblings. We had PARENTS who raised and loved us.
Our PARENTS were there for us when we needed them. We were JOYS to our parents. We completed tertiary education and above. We did not join gangs, had unplanned teenage pregnancies, nor indulged in delinquent activities. We have close relationships with friends, parents, spouses, children, and cousins to this day. We have a universalistic mindset, we know how to make friends and companions. We have great to excellent social skills. We have great jobs and an overall great life. We are LIVING OUR DREAMS.
Let me see........au contraire, the large families that I know, including parents, aunts, uncles, cousins, other assorted relatives, friends, classmates, and other assorted people......were well, unhappy, have deep psychological issues, have dead end jobs, did not complete their education, lived in poverty or near poverty. They had NO childhood or adolescence. They had to be the parent to younger siblings. They raises themselves. They did not know their parents.........what parents?
They were pulled out of school to raise their siblings or because their parents needed them to work to supplement the family income. They were backwards, especially academically. They were insular, having NO outside friends. They are uncultured and unpolished because they were not exposed to intellectual and cultural activities as children. They live from hand to mouth or rather from hand to elbow. They had no medical, health, or dential care unless they were in school. They had no clothes unless it was castoffs or from charitable donations. Their parents wanted them out of the house because they were noisy so they pushed them out. They never did anything with their parents.
If they completed high school, they were lucky. College and graduate school, OUT OF THE QUESTION! Parents were stressed "raising" them. Had to get out of the house as soon as they were able; parents could not financially support all of them. Unequal parity-oldest got the brunt, no childhood, middle child faded into background, youngest was a brat. Differental and preferential parental treatment galore. They left home as SOON as possible. They feel needy because of lack of parental attention. They got involved with delinquent activities, had unplanned teenage pregnancies, and joined gangs because of lack of parental attention and love. Oftentimes, they HATE their siblings and have UNRESOLVED issues. If one siblings or some siblings become more successful, there is ENVY, ENVY, ENVY ad infinitum. Or better yet, the less successful and/or poorer siblings want the more successful and affluent siblings to support them.
Affluent and rich large families are in the very minute percentile. The average large family is as poor and/or impoverished as church mouses. Poor small families are also in the minority, the majority of small families are educated, successful, and affluent.
The small family is more beneficial for all involved, especially the mother. The large family is detrimental and harmful for all involved, especially the mother. She is stressed by the sheer number of children. In large families, there is a more likelihood of abusive treatment and harsh coroporal punishment than it is in small families.
Nightwork4, please read a sociology book on the family and you will know that large families are detrimental and pathological. I studied the family in college, did a paper on it which I got an A, and I know firsthand people from both small and large families. What you are saying are suppositions and musings, not reality! While you are surmising, I am stating REALITY from real life situations. NEED I SAY MORE?!
NONE of the large families I know and I know P-L-E-N-T-Y did not like having a large amount of siblings, especially if they are the oldest. They had to RAISE them. The others also did not enjoy it because they felt crowded , had no space/privacy, and/or individual attention. I had friends from large families who told me this.
My father, my aunts and uncles hated it, and my mother constantly bitched about it. What they stated that their parents were stupid and did not know better. The large families that I knew denigrated their parents for having more children than they could afford. My friends did not respect their parents, actually did not associate with their parents, unless they had to. They raised themselves. They could not understand why I was close to my parents when they were not. They also "visited" my house to get away from their siblings.
The teachers at my school looked down on them and considered them to be outright hoodlums. My 6th grade teachers told one girl that she is going to be hoodlum and will amount to nothing. The other children made fun of them and excluded them. I was one of the very, very few affluent children who befriended them. The other children taught they were dirt. Such children can be described as downright feral. I taught many of them simple table manners and how to read. I taught a poor cousin from a large family who was much older than I was to read and to simple mathematics. They were also the poorer students, earning Cs and Ds, many were left back or had to attend summer school.
The majority of children from large families have no discernible training as their parents were unavailable, having to raise themselves. They had deprived and unhappy childhoods and adolescence which adversely affected their adulthoods. One friend who is the oldest of 10 had so much responsibilitiy placed upon her, she often thought of killing herself. She stated that she worked so hard to support her parents and siblings(until they established themselves), that she HAD NOTHING FOR HERSELF. She was constantly exhausted, stating that she will be glad when she died. She stated that over and over again. She was clearly an unhappy woman.
Another person I knew, the middle of 11, dissociated herself completely from her family. She hated her parents and siblings. She finally reached the pinnacle of socioeconomic success. She is what one would call wealthy. She has friends and consider them family. Want me to state more? Well, Nigjhtwork4, I have proven my point as always.
they go on welfare. Even if these children were foster children the pay is not enough to raise this amount of children. I would hope that they would have their own farm in order to feed them correctly. Unless, like you said, one parent makes a whole lotta money. Look at Octomom, now she has a mental problem.
Well my mom had nine children, and look at how we all turned out. We were actually supposed to be eleven but the twins died when my mom had a miscarriage. My younger brother passed away in 2009, so that makes us eight grown up children roaming different parts of North America. Surprisingly, mom had time for all of us. She is probably a rare breed of superwomen.
As long as that woman is able to care for these children and raise them in a loving environment, I see no problem with a person choosing to have that meany children.
To Snapplejax, that's the point. Parents of large families DO NOT RAISE their children nor SPEND INDIVIDUAL TIME with them. Large families are an entirely different society than small families. In small families, parents raise their children or have another trusted adult such as nannies and/or au pairs raise their children. In large families, ADULTS DO NOT RAISE THEIR CHILDREN, NO SIREE BOB, it is THE OLDEST CHILD who RAISE HIS/HER YOUNGER SIBLINGS or many times than most, CHILDREN ARE RAISING EACH OTHER. Children in large families do not have much contact with their parents, they only have contact with their siblings.
The premise that parents raise their large families are a false one and a myth. I have maternal grandparents and other relatives with a large amount of children. The children raised themselves while the parents were absent. Children in large families are often helter skelter, learning and doing everything on their own. They are self-taught. The only one teaching them is an older sibling who is oftentimes no more than a child himself/herself. Children of large families do not receive the intensive and thorough training and teaching that children from small families receive. I know this firsthand from my maternal aunts and uncles, cousins, and other associates who came from large families. They were rough around the edges to say the least.
I have been in small and large family environment. In the small family environment, the parent is always there and ever vigilant. Even if a parent or parents are not there, there is always a trusted adult around. Not so in large families. In large families, the parents are NO WHERE to be found, the children have no discipline, come and go as they please, and doing as they please. When I was a very young child visiting my maternal grandparents, THEY took no part in raising their children, the children ran the roost so to speak. In other words, they did as they please. When I was In my parents' house and in other small family environment, the parents were the ones in charge and YOU DEFINITELY knew it! We from small families were disciplined and had rules and our parents were there to guide and teach us.
Parents of small families are involved, nurturing, and caring parents who view their children as joys. Parents of large families, au contraire, view their children as onerous burdens and obligations to be provided for until they get out of the house. The latter parenting style is often perfunctory and something to be endured. My mother relayed to me that her mother was not an involved parent; in fact, she viewed her and her siblings as burdens. She related that no once did her parents hugged and kissed her and her siblings. Now, I have proven my case regarding large families.
Wow, that's a really good point. Although I know quite a few big families that are loving and nurturing, I know what you mean about parents who pop out children and don't care (well) for them. Good post!
To Snapplejax, written numerous hubs on the subject at hand. Studied the family dynamic in college and know firsthand about large families from parents, aunts, uncles, cousins, friends, and other associates. Let me tell you, it is NOT PRETTY AT ALL! Parents? what parents in large families? They are unavailable...............children in large families have to do the BEST that they can.
Parents are very nonchalant in the large family environment..........their premise is that the children either swim or sink. If they thrive, fine; if they self-destruct and are weak, tough #$%^$! is the parents' attitude. Small families are MORE LOVING and NURTURING regarding children. Parents are always there for their children! In large families, parents could not care less or give a good $%^&*@! about their children. To the parents, the children are here.......well, so what- THEY CAN TAKE CARE OF THEMSELVES!
Children in large families have no parental guidance and have to learn on their own by osmosis. That is why people from large families make less loving and nurturing parents than their counterparts from small families are more involved and loving parents. Parents who have large families do not teach their children, they believe that their children should "pick up" things on their own. People from large families tend to be uninvolved, cold, and quite perfunctory parents who view parenting as a chore and responsibility, pure and simple.
I would think she lacks ambition and may be a tad bit selfish, speaking as one of ten married to one of 9 and related to many 5,6,7,8s. We have become a selfish, materialistic and self-centered culture. One need look no farther than twitter and youtube to see what we have become as we live lives focused upon material and not people. On a dead end street of ten houses, my neighborhood boasted 31 children from 6 families. The old folks in our neighborhood never went without help. They never had to mow their own lawns, shovel their own snow or tend to the hard work in their gardens.
It is not the Catholic Church, after all much of Europe is Catholic and they are in a demographic death spiral. It is not urbanization, we grew up in a city of over a million people. It isn't female servitude. My mother would flatten you for suggesting such a thing. It wasn't enslavement of my father, he will tell you he was proud to serve his family. We wanted for nothing, except meaningless, trivial luxuries that serve more to drain than to fill the soul, the heart and real life.
We always felt sorry for kids from smaller families, who did they have to lie on their bellies on the front porch and draw on a rainy day? Or play with from sun up until the street lights came on? How can they be safe with no one to watch out for them? My home was the center of wealth beyond dollars. It was the center of activity in a three city block radius because we knew what team was, play was, laughter was.
I remember a boy who lived with his grandparents and wasn't permitted to run, jump, yell or climb near them. He turned into a self centered and miserable person. Among the 19 members of my in-laws and siblings all have post-secondary degrees, all have children - many of whom have already graduated college. We have either served our country, communities or churches.
I know a family of ten that has produced nothing but teachers, police officers, fire fighters, doctors, soldiers and preachers.
Narrow self centered people are not produced by large families, they are produced by parents and the society they permit to influence their children. It is indeed nurture not nature and one or ten matters less than the way they are raised.
The following is a loaded question based on the absurd assumptions that the number of children in a family determines the actions and morality of those children. It is to illustrate the absurdity of the underlying, and wrong headed, assumptions.
If children in small families are far more advantaged - therefore, more likely to be selfless, moral, etc... - than a child from a large family then why have the last several mass killers all been from small families?
See how large families view small families as materialistic because the latter does not possess a psychology that socioeconomic struggle is normal and anything beyond socioeconomic struggle is abhorrent. People from large families grow up in an environment of want and struggle, believing it to be good. They are more attuned to the more basic, rudimentary needs as opposed to those from small families who grew up and want the better things of life.
Children from small families travelled, had dancing and music lessons. Children from small families attended and participated in cultural and educational events that children from large families NEVER attended. Children from small families had better clothes, medical/health/dental care, and great quality of food. Children from small families did not have to struggle to exist from hand to mouth, oops, rather from hand to elbow.
Children from small families travelled summers. If they worked, they worked because they WANTED to. Not because they HAD to like children from large families. Children from small families attended college and pursued advanced education whereas children from large families had to forego their education, often in high school, to work in order to SUPPLEMENT family income. Children from small families FARE better. Children from small families play. In fact, they had more opportunity to play and had more CONSTRUCTIVE and EDUCATIONAL forms of play than those from large families.
Don't feel sorry for those from small families. They are better off than those from large families educationally and socioeconomically. They are doctors, lawyers, CEOs, executives, managers, high to mid-level professionals because they had opportunities to pursue tertiary educations and beyond. Children from LARGE families END UP working for children from small families. While children from large families have JOBS, children from small families have CAREERS. Children from large families are clerks, low level employees, maids, waitstaff, janitors, and other similar jobs.
The four words children from large families ought to learn is, "CAN I HELP YOU" for they will be saying that throughout their job tenture. Another words that they should learn is,"WHAT CAN I DO FOR YOU, SIR/ MA'AM". Also, children from large/very large families will be more likely to have lifetime poverty because of early family environment, having to forego education to supplement family income, thus being consigned to LOW WAGE, DEAD END jobs.
Children from small families don't have to rationalize their life; notice how children from large familiy have to RATIONALIZE theirs, hmmmmmm. People from large family always HATED on those from small families. Is it ENVY, people from large families ENVY those from small families but small families sure as heck DON'T ENVY large families at all. In fact, large families are PITIED by society!
They are likely to be impoverished or near it. Inferior food if it can be called that. Inferior clothings either castoffs or throwaways. Depending upon donations from more affluent family, charities, and the government. Working from childhood because parents did not have the foresight to plan for their children but reproducing at will and ad infinitum. Not having a normal childhood. Hating children who were more prosperous and had the advantages/opportunities that THEY DIDN'T. Say society is materialistic when people want to live beyond impoverishment and struggle. In essence, living in a civilized society, like a civilized human being instead of living at the lowest common denominator.
People from large families have a scarcity/poverty mentality and consciousness. They DO live in their own, SEPARATE universe. Sad really. To them, poverty and struggle ARE.....GOOD. Notice how people from large/very large families believe that EVERYONE should be all be the same economically as THEY ARE. Hmmm, very strange indeed.
Large family "life"? Impoverishment, doing WITHOUT even the necessities, inferior goods. Being on the OUTSIDE, looking at the rest of society. Wondering if one has ENOUGH, if that. Going to bed hungry most of the time. Depending upon schools for nutritious food. Having THIRD or FOURTH class status. DISADVANTAGED. Many people in large families live in DENIAL. Yes, there is a universe called DENIAL and INVERSE LOGIC where good is bad and bad is.....SO GOOD.
The psychology of the large family is indeed different from the psychology of the small family. Think Roman and Hun.
Large family? NOT in YOUR life, buddy!
In further response saying that the mass killers came from small families. That is a MINORITY. Some of the most ruthless and violent killers came from LARGE/VERY LARGE families. Me thinks that someone had better read some sociology books and books on gangs. Children from large/very large families are more likely to indulge in deleterious and delinquent activities because they are not properly supervised. They roam the streets, getting into all kinds of mischief because they haven't the funds to participate in more educational, cultural, and constructive activities.
Mark Wahlberg, part of a very large family, admitted to roaming the streets, even to murdering a man which he was imprisoned for. He admitted that he followed some of his siblings being incarcerated. So don't HATE on the small family. The small family is INFINITELY better by far than the large family. At least, I was exposed to the better things of life. This motiviated me to get a good education and to work at a CAREER, not a......JOB. Those from large families are so satisfied with..........POVERTY, STRUGGLE, and SCARCITY. Affluence is a FOREIGN word in the large family vocabulary!
All you said about my husband's family was true. It was sad, though a few of them still tend to glorify it all, saying, "but we had love." I know that wasn't true, my Mother in law never called my Husband once to wish him a Happy Birthday, or for any other occasion.
I did recently get together with a few of his cousins, they kept promising to take me out to lunch after his funeral. It took them 5 months to get that together. Because Christmas without him will be too hard this first time for my son and me, we decided to go to Antigua. They were shocked we were going away (like we want to be with them) and never heard of all inclusive vacations. I took out my smartphone to show them some pics of my son and my bedroom I redecorated so I wouldn't miss my husband so much, and they didn't even know how to scroll through the pictures. He would have wanted us to be happy, and spend the money he worked hard to make. My car lease was up and I bought a car this time, I like that better. They acted so shocked that I had money to do these things, but we saved hard too. I guess they never heard of investments or retirement plans. It's like they live on another planet.
I called his sister on his birthday, thinking she would feel sad, and she didn't even remember it was his b-day, as I said, occasions don't get celebrated when you have such large families. I guess your achievements never do either. We always went out for those occasions, when someone graduated, got a promotion, or anything happy happened. They just get jealous of each other, or at least the few that can function at a level where they achieve anything. Many of them are hoarders, drug addicts and alcoholics and can't even hold onto a menial job.
Definitely, Jean. There is a WAR going on between the small family and the large family. We are WINNING and they are......LOSING. Remember the analogy of the Waffen SS, knowing that they are LOSING and DEFEATED, fighting to their DEATH, know that ALL IS LOST. Well, same here. The large family proponent are fighting a losing battle. Such "rationalization" Jean, really. People from large families attend college and have good jobs. What planet are THEY on? Most people from large/very large families end up in low wage, dead end job or let's us say McJobs. McJobs are filled with people from large families. As I said before, children from large/very large families end up working for us from small famlies. The HATE is runing deep, running deep.
First of all, children from large/very large families are LUCKY if they complete secondary education. Oftentimes, they DON'T even complete high school. College is COMPLETELY OUT of the QUESTION or to be more succinct, NOT IN THE EQUATION. Most children from large/very large families will end up in DIRE straits socioeconomically. Yet, they continue to defend a lifestyle which a thinking and intelligent person would view as detrimental. Told you, Jean, there is a land called DENIAL where people rationalize situations that normal people would call dysfunctional.
I am in concurrence with you Jean that most people from large/very large families don't achieve anything of note. They live a quite subsistent level "life". Keywords large familiy: poverty, struggle, crowded environment, scarcity consciousness, not wanting to achieve anything substantive, being satisfied with NOTHING, NEED I SAY MORE, no!
Have proven what was stated in my hubs on the large/very large family! Also remember the Roman and the Hun. Remember how difficult it was for the Roman to acculture the Hun. People from large/very large families prefer a quite rudimentary existence. They eschew the things that a highly civilized society contains. You get the picture!
You mentioned savings and investments. To people from large/very large familiels, savings and investments are Greek to them. They grew up in poverty after all, it is good if they have barely enough food, clothing, and shelter. Living beyond the lowest, basic socioeconomic level is beyond their purview so to speak. They came from a family environment where parents reproduced at will without considering the financial, emotional, and psychologically ramifications this "act" would have on the family finances. If they are below poverty, that is GOOD because poverty is good for children. That is the large family philosophy. Normal people live at a comfortable level with investments and savings; they also live at a level beyond struggle where luxuries and the finer things of life are not anathemas. However, they always have their HANDS out, begging when they are OUTof monies, clothing, and other necessities. Large families are the major recipients of outside assistance.
You are on the money, Jean, stating that jealousy is indeed rife in large/very large families. My mother and aunt were jealous of the younger siblings for what they did not receive. My father was an object of hatred from his older sibings. GLAD to be an ONLY! They are also venomously jealous and go into attack mode on those from small families who are more advantaged. See the prevailing them here. If I can't have it, if I can't experience it, WHY SHOULD ANYONE? Yes, jealousy is rampant in the large family psychological make-up. It is sad really. They want EVERYONE to be mired in the socioeconomic poverty that they are. In addition to affluence being a FOREIGN concept/word to the large/very large family, it is also a DIRTY word.
I am against the large/very large family for the reasons detailed above. It is damaging to the children. Children are oftentimes psychologically, mentally, and emotionally affected in negative ways from growing up in such families. They feel that their life is normal when it is totally aberrant in comparison to the rest of middle class/affluent society. But it is hard to get that through to those of large/very large families. You are right, they DO exist in a different planet from us. If one has children, make sure one is financial prepared and stable and have 1-2 children so that children live a life beyond a rudimentary and primitive existence of struggle and have myriad cultural and educational opportunities. Have a WONDERFUL and BLESSED night, Jean.
There is a great deal of rage in what you have written here, perhaps setting aside the sociology you wrongly assume that I do not read and engaging in a little self analysis will help. I have degrees in European History, Sociology and Secondary Education and a Masters Degree. My Brothers are an artist, a forester, a business manager, a painter and a publisher, two with Post Graduate Degrees. My Sisters are a writer, an accountant, a dancer and a teacher(with a Masters Degree.) I have already recounted the professions of other members of large families I know. All have been athletes. There are several with masters degrees and a couple with PhDs. I prefer Vivaldi to any music my family routinely sang in school and church choirs.
Did we have a new TV, a new car, air conditioning, no. Do these things make people superior?
Is it a material difference that makes people inferior or superior?
Does that mean the a member of a minority that is more widely represented among the materially poor is inferior to a member of the majority group that is more widely represented among the materially wealthy?
Jean, I wasn't talking about your husband's family What you have stated about your in-laws reminded me of my extended family of maternal aunts, uncles, and one group of cousins. Talk about total dysfunction. Out of 10 children, my mother, uncle, and youngest aunt were the most affluent, the others were poor to impoverished.
My mother's very large family depended on donations from my affluent, childfree aunt. They EXPECTED handouts and help. That is one secret that those from large/very large families are loathe to acknowledge, wonder why? You are right that those from large/very large families are TAKERS, but never givers. TAKE is their first, middle and last name.
Not only my extended family whom I elected to disconnect from as I have NOTHING in common with them, but also former classmates and friends from large/very large families. They too depended upon donations from more affluent children from small families. They lived on charity. They, too, have a TAKE, TAKE, TAKE mentality.
People from large/very family are inculcated to see struggle as good and normal. They see affluence as greed and wastefulness. This thinking is not normal at all. They have no concept of savings and investments as they believe that such is unnecessary and one can live great in poverty. They have no concept of planning and living for the future. Their parents set the example by reproducing children that they can ill afford but do so anyway. Let me not digress. Immediate gratification and struggle are their companions but to them this is middle-class living! Large/very large famlies live in a VERY DIFFERENT world. They are .............DIFFERENT.
Jean, what they are saying does not sound humane in regarding chlldren. They simply view children quite differently than we from small famlies view them. They believe in QUANTITY while we from small families believe that each child should be planned and have at least, an upper middle class life with every opportunity and exposure to the higher and better things of life. Sadly, they believe that amenities are necessary just bare survival, if that. Shocking, isn't it! Again, ROMAN and HUN. Children in large famlies if they can be classified as children are merely numbers, points, or serviceable in one way or another to their parents. They aren't considered to be individuals but a group. In the large family, the individual is NOTHING to hear many people in large families describe their childrearing. Jean, it is so heartbreaking it makes me cry.
What is normative in the large/very large family is considered dysfunctional, even abusive by those of us from small famlies. Pity those from large/very large families for they have MISSED OUT on so much. Not to experience fine dining in restaurants & at home. Not to have dancing/music lessons. Not attending theatre. Not travelling to foreign countries and learning its culture. Not having books and other forms of educational paraphernalia in the home.
It is distressing when unthinking parents have SO MANY children that the children are impoverished or worse. Having to settle for crumbs. Eating and wearing that people find unpalatable. Being LESS than less. Having nothing and low expectations, knowing that one will NEVER be as good. No medical or health care. If sick or hungry, well tough, it's the BREAKS.
Very heartwretching to say the least. I am really crying now. How can any parent subject beautiful, precious children to such agony that makes a concentration camp seem like a palace in comparison. Oh, the indignity that many of such beautiful children are routinely subjected to by selfish, uncaring parents.
We from small families have to show and give love to those from large/very large families. Notice how inwardly unhappy they are; if they weren't they would not endlessly rationalize their "childhood".
LARGE FAMILY LIFE, it's commonplace for children in large/very large families to go without food because their parents cannot reasonably nor in good faith support their children, even at THE MOST BASIC level. Thank God, for school breakfast and lunch programs.
Your assertions drip with a bigoted condescension emerging from the narrative of your family and generalized to all large families. Given the experiences of my family, my father's family, my wife's family, both of her parents' families, the families of many of my friends and neighbors this is patently untrue.
You are generalizing based on the number of children in the family rather than the behavior of the parents. Is affluence an actual virtue? Are clothes from Goodwill actually inferior to clothes purchased new?
There are some deeply seeded prejudices and dark emotions in the opinions about large families offered here, as if small families producing cultured and virtuous children is an ontological certitude.
Considering the educational levels achieved and the professions pursued by all the children of large families within my own circle, I can say without hesitation that the opinions offered here are best employed as fertilizer for roses.
When we discuss most issues, it is helpful to be as specific as possible. The details of a situation are very important and may affect how we feel about a situation or event. What is the family income? Is the large family in the city or in the country? Are there relatives near by who want to be an active part of the family? Were the children spaced apart, all clumped together and were there any twins or triplets? Answers to all these questions would shed a great deal of light on whether a "large" family was healthy or not, good for the children or not.
I am not pointing a finger at you, but what I see in the lengthy and often very repetitive responses to your question is a lot of anger, arrogance, and narrow mindedness. Many, if not most of the comments either refer to generalities (there is no "general large family") or the comments are based on "personal family experience," which is very problematic ( no decent researcher or analyst would make comparisons and judgments based on one family or one situation).
No one's "personal family experience" can or should be used to evaluate and judge other families and situations. All families are different, all children are different. Being rude and bombastic and ranting and raving (not you) about a topic -- does not mean the person is right or correct.
In fact it often means they have a hidden agenda or motive and emotion, rather than reason is driving their responses. I think your question was interesting and with a few more details and less emotional hysteria, a vert good conversation could have taken place. My best to you.
I didn't start this thread, but was married to a man for 39 years, whose Mom was one of 9 children, and they were all as I described them. I thought I was marrying into a close, loving family, and was shocked at the jealousies, phobias, and outrageous things they all did to get attention. It was sad. All they did was fight and make each occasion miserable for everyone.
They were poor, but did live in a big city, so were looked upon as oddities. There weren't Aunts and Uncles around, the Mom and Dad seemed to be pretty much on their own as far as raising the kids. It seemed they were only a year or so apart, no twins or triplets. All the men got away as fast as they could as soon as they finished HS, (if they did) and the women all remained backward, none of them even learned how to drive, or worked. From what I heard of the holidays, they used to eat in 3 shifts, men, then kids, then women, but there was never enough, so everyone never got over grabbing and overeating food as they got older, even when some of them did manage to overcome and have more financial success. Even if they came to a grandchild's birthday party for a half hour, they would throw a tantrum if the cake wasn't cut when they left so they could have a piece. Everyone knows that the cutting of a B-day cake signals the end and most important part of a child's party, and nobody in their 60's should be trying to upstage that.
But they were always so mean spirited, when the cousins began dating and marrying, and the cycle of jealousy and cattiness never ended. Early in the marriage I tried hard to get along, and when we had our own son, and they neglected him the few times they watched him, I never left him alone in their care, though I did not exclude his Grandparents from his life, they did have redeeming qualities.
I put up with a lot of their garbage, cooking them all special meals every holiday (none of them ever matured enough to host a dinner), I gave them gifts, celebrated their joys, though they ignored all of mine. They never came to either funeral when my parents died. So I don't know how that makes me hysterical or arrogant. I only came into the conversation because of my husband's passing, and the non surprise of no support from his side of the family at all. Or because of the few oddball things they have done or said since, because even though they want to act like I no longer exist, they are still arguing about the way we conducted his service, the choices I'm trying to make as I have to move forward alone, and still criticize my son's career choices (he's a kindergarten teacher and assistant director of a Martial Arts School.) I know it's the usual jealousy, and doubt we will be in touch much. After my experiences with them, I wouldn't get near another family that large.
Although there is no general large family, what Jean states about large families is true. Large/very large families (6 children or more per household) are pretty much which Jean describes. The large/very large family exist in a different milieu, culture, and universe from the rest of the population. Children from large/very large families are more or less are in the very lowest socioeconomic strata. There are hardly any middle, upper middle, and upper class children from large/very large families. Such is an extreme rarity.
Let me not digress. The overwhelming majority of large/very large families range from poor to very impoverished. This means that in large/very large family households, finances are stretched to the ultimate limit. There is no monies, even for the necessities.
Children from large/very large families must make do with inferior quality food. Powdered and canned foods are commonplace in the large/very large family household. Two decades ago on the program DATELINE on NBC, a father of FOURTEEN wondered how he was going to feed his children. It was suggested that he get food that was discarded by the stores. There has to be a degree of mental psychosis to have more children than one can support in a reasonable matter and to subject children to poverty-like conditions.
Children from large/very large families have no medical/health/dental care. If they get sick, they had to endure it. Let me add that many of them only receive medical attention through school sponsored health care as many also receive nutritious foods through school breakfast and lunch programs. It is commonplace for children from large/very large families to go bed hungry as there is not enough food to go around. It is usually the oldest/older children who go to bed hungry so that the younger/youngest children can eat.
Children from large/very large families wear castoffs, throwaways, and second hand clothings that were either discarded or previous worn as new and more fashionable clothing are beyond the budget of the average large/very large families. The clothing of children from large families are of very inferior quality and unstylish. One can easily tell children from large/very large families at a glance. They often look like they are orphans. They are out of place among regular children who have better quality of clothing and are more fashionable in appearance.
Children from large/very large families have no books and other sorts of educatoinal/cultural paraphernalia in the home. Such things are not viewed as important in homes of large/very large families as the emhasis is on pure survival and the necessities of life. In large/very large families, anything beyond the necessities as seen as unncessary and wasteful. If you interviewed and observed children/people from large/very large families, they see anything beyond the basic rudiments of food, clothing, and shelter as superfluous and extravagant. Parents of large/very large families feel that books and other cultural/intellectual forms of stimulation is unimportant. On a large family blog, a mother of a large brood of children indicated that she did not care about books and computers as far as her children go.
Children from large/very large families aren't exposed to cultural and intellectual activities like children from small families are. There is NO monies for such activities in the homes of large/very large families. Also, such parents feel that such activities AREN'T important. The average child from a large/very large is very culturally illiterate. They also do not possess the social graces as they never attended theatre, had dancing/music lessons, travelled to foreign countries, attended a museum, and/or other related activities. Many parents of large/very large families emphatically state(read large family blogs) that their children DON'T need such things. Large/very families are not attuned to the higher human needs but rather to the lower, basic, and more primal rudimentary needs.
Children from large/very large families live on top of each other. There is no such thing as privacy in the large/very large family. The average large/very large family live in packs and in the open. That is why when exposed to children from small families who had privacy, children from large/very large families find the concept of privacy to be........STRANGE to say the least.
Children from large/very large families were reared with the concept of the group. Individualism is not emphasized in large/very large families. They were taught that to have a concept of self is wrong and is selfish. They were taught that they of themselves are nothing and that others are more important than they are. Many children from large/very large families have very low self-esteem and/or a very poor concept of self, especially oldest children from large/very large families.
Children from large/very large families oftentimes must have aid and assistance from outside charities such as churches, school, other relatives, and the government to stay socioeconomically afloat. It is extremely difficult for the average large/very large family to stay socioeconomically afloat. A significant percentage of large/very large families are at the poverty level and below. This means that aid and assistance from outside sources are a NECESSARY for the large/very large family household.
As a result of impoverished conditions, children from large/very large families see poverty and socioeconomic struggle as an acceptable lfestyle. They view any type of socioeconomic affluence as extravagant, greedy, and selfish. They love poverty and believe that because they are poor and struggling, every child should be poor and struggling and if the child is socioeconomically affluent and have the amenities and luxuries of life, he/she is spoiled in the eyes of children from large/very large families. Children from large/very large families have a psychology that is inverse from other children.
Children from large/very large families have to work from middle childhood to purchase things that normal children have. It is not unusual for children from large/very large families to start working from the time they are ten years old at afterschool and weekend jobs. While other children indulge and participate in extracurricular events and activities, children of large/very large families are working to help supplement their parent's income. Oldest/older children from large/very large families have to discontinue and/or forego their education to work to help the family. This is normative in large/very large family households.
Jean is right in her premise regarding large/very large families. I have parents, extended relatives, former friends, and former associates from large/very large families. What Jean states about large/very large families is SPOT ON. People who grew up in large/very large families have a poverty and scarcity consciousness which carries on into adulthood. They also have a harsher and tougher, more ruthless approach to life and a harsher, tougher, more callous attitude towards people because of their impoverished upbringing. In one of my hubs on the large/very large family, one of the commenters indicated that what I stated about the large/very large family was true; in fact, the commenter indicated that it is MUCH WORSE than what I have stated.
Yes, I had dealings with large/very large families and they do exist in an alternative universe. The psychology and psychosocial dynamics of large/very large families are DIAMETRICALLY DIFFERENT to that of small families. I, too, had experiences with people from large/very large families. I WOULD NEVER date or marry a man from a large/very large family. First of all, he has a poverty mentality and is content with little or nothing in life.
Also, people from large/very large families are satisfied with nothing. They do not believe in acquiring a high level of success(my parents, ONE maternal uncle and aunt are the EXCEPTION in addition to THREE maternal grandaunts) and are happy living at a VERY PRIMITIVE level. They are also highly clannish and insular towards outsiders. This explains why people from small families are LOATH to socialize and intermingle with those from large/very large families.
The culture of each is so different from each other. The world of a person from a small family and the world of a person from a large/very large family is in strict opposites. The person of small family would experience culture shock when entering the sociocultural environment of a person from a large/very large family and vice versa.
That is why for the most part, people from small families feel better around and mostly have friends/significant others/partners/spouses from small families and those from large/very large families feel better around and mostly have friends/significant others/partners/spouses from large/very large families as both feel the most comfortable among their own kind.
For example, if a person from a small family has a relationship with a person from a large/very large family whether friend, significant other, partner, and/or spouse, it is going to be problematic. The person from a large/very large family has a different perspective and outlook from the person from a small family. Attitudes towards success and general worldviews are divergently different, even opposites and there is going to be a clash.
The same applies if a person from a large/very large family has a relationship with a person from a small family whether friend, significant other, partner, and/or spouse. There is going to be a CLASH of perspectives, viewpoints, and viewpoints. That is why it is better for people from large/very large families to have relationships only with others from large/very large families and those from small families to have relationships only with others from small families. People from large/very large families don't/won't understand people from small families and people from small families find those from large/very large families to be.......well, ODD.
Lastly, children from large/very large families based upon their impoverished beginnings and upbringing, have very low expectations, expect the worst, and settle for the crumbs of life. Children from small families based upon their more advantageous beginning and upbringing, have very high expectations, expect, and obtain the BEST. Children from large/very large families always are at THE BOTTOM of the rung.
I won't keep posting, gm, but what you say is exactly what I experienced with the 2nd generation of my husband's family. All of us who married into it were bewildered by how weird they were. The children of the large family raised their children in much the same way, calling them "rugrats" and saying each one was "just another quart of milk." They ruined all our weddings, inviting strangers and never understood how to act in social situations.
I was one of the lucky ones, as I said, my husband was thrilled with my family, and adapted fast to vacations, eating out at nice restaurants, and especially loved gift giving on special occasions. I was fascinated watching him enjoy so much all I took for granted. But the majority of his cousins would live with nothing if it was easy. They wouldn't bother to buy a suit to go to an important occasion if they could get by with an old hand me down that didn't fit and looked awful. They didn't food shop unless there wasn't a morsel in the house. He was fine with having one child, who has been around the world and in so many situations that he's comfortable anywhere. I'm not saying the families with 4 or 5 are bad, but bigger than that something is off with the parents.
+1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, children from large/very large families(6 or more children per household) are raised in packs. I read in a sociology book(wish I knew the book title), that in large/very large families, parents are harsher, colder, less nurturing, and less involved.
My maternal grandmother never hugged her 10 children. They were just there. In one of my hubs on the family, I stated that parents from large/very large families viewed their children as NOISOME obligations, mere mouths to feed. They see their children as........PROBLEMATIC. They simply DON'T treat their children as precious human beings. In large/very large families, children are not seen as individuals, but as cogs in a group.
Children in large/very large families are dehumanized and are treated as less than human by their parents. That is why children from large/very large families say that children from small families are spoiled because the latter are treated as individuals, precious entities, and joys while they are seen by their parents as tolerable burdens at best and personae non gratae at worst.
Jean, the 2nd generation of my maternal cousins(first) range from highly affluent with either professional or high powered positions to totally impoverished or worse.They were from small families. The cousins who were from the large/very large families end up the LEAST educated and either poor, impoverished, or below poverty.
One can aptly state that the lives of children in large/very large families are akin to life in a prison and/or concentration camp. Little or poor food of inferior quality, inferior, secondhand, and/or tossed away clothing, harsh/callous/unloving treatment by parents, intense competition for the rudiments, living in the most primitive conditions without amenities, no privacy/living in the open, and being a NUMBER, instead of a name.
Parents of large/very large families DON'T love their children. There is no such thing as love in large/very large families. When people from large/very large families say that they receive love, it is a ruse to rationalize their dysfunctional and pathological life. If you talk to children from large/very large families, they will tell you that their parents NEVER showed physical affection towards them.
This is why when children from large/very large families become parents, they are also cold, harsh, non-nurturing, and uninvolved parents. They believe that children raise themselves, they do not believe in TEACHING and SPENDING time with their children. Also, in the large/very large family environment, parents are oftentimes verbally abusive to their children. There are no words of love towards their children, just barking, screaming,and sometimes cursing. Physical abuse of children is quite rife in large/very large families.
Children in large/very large families live in very primitive conditions, that goes without saying. They are happy with nothing or next to nothing. They do not understand what it is like to experience the higher human needs such as culture, attending fine restaurants, having fashionable/beautiful clothes, living in beautiful surroundings, and travelling to foreign countries. To the average person in a large/very large family, travelling is either visiting a friend or relative out of town. Children from large/very large families DON'T travel, that is foreign to them.
That is why children /people from large/very large families HATE children/people from small families, particularly only children. It is ALL based upon jealousy that large/very large families have towards small families. Children from large/very large families, with VERY, VERY FEW EXCEPTIONS, continue their childhood patterns. Children from large/very large families tend to have LARGE, VERY LARGE families themselves unless they are educated to the advantages of small families. They tend to be either at or near the bottom socioeconomically. I have said this in my hubs on the large family that children from large/very large families have a poverty mindest, poverty consciousness, and a poverty mentality.
They are happiest at the lowest, most basest, and most primitive of living and socioeconomic conditions. They feel that anything beyond socioeconomic penury is greedy and extravagant. Like you Jean, that is why I stay away from people from large/very large families including relatives. Their poverty mindset is toxic and sickening.
I KNEW from a young teenager that children from large/very large families had a rough/callous/primitive mindset and aren't used to the amenities of civilized living. That is why I disassociated from them when I became a young teenager. I would NEVER have friendships or close relationships with a person from a large/very large family for the reasons described above.
I prefer to have friendships and/or relationships with people from small families such as myself for there is a commonality. A person from a large/very large families wouldn't like nor understand the cultural/intellectual activities that I enjoy and thrive upon and I wouldn't like nor understand the roughneck and more primal activities that they enjoy and thrive upon. They have a poverty mindest while I DO NOT.
Jean, what you stated about marrying into a large/very large family reminded me of the late Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis. Ms. Onassis did not want her two children, Caroline and the late John Jr. to associate with Ethel Kennedy's brood because she believe those cihldren to be loud, brusque, feral, and generally uncivilized. Mrs. Onassis felt that her children were well brought up while Ethel's children were rowdy.
I had SEVERAL dealings and encounters with people from large/very large families including relatives, friends, and classmates. To say it is a cultural shock is putting it mildly. It is similiar to a civilized and highly acculturated Roman encountering Huns. They are unruly, they NEVER give anything but ARE ALWAYS ON THE DOLE, TAKING. They are clannish. There is much backstabbing and infighting. They have a hatred of those who do better socioeconomically and educationally than they do.
They have a venomous mentality. Jean what you have described is so true, but MUCH WORSE than what you have eloquently elucidated. Huns were more civilized than those I have encountered from large/very large families. These people were primal at the basest level.
No personally I do not think that a woman with more than 8 children has a mental problem at all. But more likely she loves children and enjoys having sex as well, because she is at her prime in woman hood.
Any woman who has a large family( 6 or more children per household) has a severe void in her life. She is using having children as a subterfuge for her not having a constructive social life, hobby, activities, and a fulfillilng career. She should seek psychological, if not psychiatric help. She has either pregnancy addiction or baby hunger. She would be much happier if she has friends, have a career, and take up a constructive hobby instead of reproducing ad infinitum. Yes, she has some DEEP, DEEP, DEEP issue which only a qualified psychologist or better yet, psychiatrist can address and remedy. No normal and mentally sound woman has a large family.
So if a woman loves family, loves children, loves to take care of them, raise them, tuck them in at night and give them a solid foundation for a good future; she is wrong to have this desire... even if this is where her gifts lie. She would however be acceptable if she shared possibly your interests and became instead; solidly implanted in the rat race, went bowling with peers and attended regular meetings with a psychiatrist?
Instead of mindlessly reproducing children, condemning them to a childhood of poverty and want, a woman would do better to have a career, hobby, friends, and activities. She also could volunteer with homeless children and children in her neighborhood. It is a psychotic act for a woman to have a large-very large family in this age of advanced contraception.
Children AREN'T collectibles but are precious individuals, worthy of the best socioeconomic and educational opportunities. They are also INDIVIDUALS worthy of parental time and attention. They aren't cogs but children in large-very large families are seen and treated as cogs instead of individuals by their "parents".
Really? The average mother of large families(6 and/or more children per household) is OVERWHELMED and TAXED to the limit by the sheer number of children in her household. Many women had/have large families because of religious obligation. They are told by their respective religions that they MUST have children and as many as possible.
A seconday reason that women have large families is their addiction to pregnancy. Some women see being pregnant as an excuse to receive attention, even adulation. Others are simply too uninformed or too thoughtless to use birth control. There are those who are obsessed about having children. They see their children as collections, not caring about how their actions impact on the family emotionally, mentally, psychologically, and financially.
The typical parent, especially mother, of a large family views his/her children as burdensome obligations and mouths to feed. In large families, there is little or no parental interaction. Children in large families MUST FEND for themselves very early in life, starting from childhood.
Children in large families must learn to swim or sink.and otherwise navigate their perilous familial environment. They often have to learn to support themselves socioeconomically, mentally, and emotionally in childhood as their parents cannot support them. I know children from large families who RAISED THEMSELVES from children related by cousins, friends, and associates.
In large families, parents do not hug their children nor pay sufficient attention to them. The average child in large families seldom, if ever, receive parental affection. This is why children in large families are attention starved because they are attention deprived.
Mothers of large families love children? Not really, many see their children as bothersome and cumbersome obligations. I have associated with people from large families from relatives to associates, NONE of them reported ever receiving parental affection and attention. Such things are FOREIGN in large families.
Parents, especially mothers, in large families. are often terse with their children. Never have I witnessed parents of large families hugging their children. In their purview, hugging children is considered to be spoiling and mollycoddling them. In large families, children are treated as roughly and harshly as possible.
In large families, children are not considered to be precious jewels. They are mouths to feed and obligational annoyances. Mothers of large families DON'T tuck their children at night. They DON'T read to their children. That explains that hardscrabble and rough attitude of children in large families.
People from large families can be described as cold, harsh, and distant because that was the way they were "raised" by their parents. That is why so many children from large families see children from small families(1-2 children per household) as spoiled because the latter received parental attention and affection.
Children in small families are also treated with more humanity, love, and courtesy than children in large families. Children in large families are viewed as merely obligations and cogs in the family machine. They are barely tolerated at best and neglected/left to fend for themselves at worst. This is de rigueur in the large family environment.
You can't always speak from assumption. This is not the case with the women I know. They are very loving and normal families. They've learned what they must do to function as a group and they are doing splendidly. Maybe you don't have a wide enough circle of friends.
No assumption but from what relatives, friends, and associates from large families have told me and what I have observed. You're right on one thing, there is NO such thing as individualism in large families. Children are seen and treated as a collective whole not as individuals. In large families, some children are neglected while others receive the lion's share of parental attention. Mothers of large families view their children as burdens and as mere mouths to feed.
I know of NO mothers of large families who ever spoke lovingly to their children-from my maternal grandmother and others. All they did was to SCREAM and SHOUT at their children. Shouting and screaming at children are commonplace reactions from mothers of large families. I also studied large family dynamics in college and read SEVERAL books on large families in addition to associating and intermingling with such people from relatives, friends, and associates. It AIN'T pretty at all. No right thinking woman WANTS a large family-such children are had because of religious indoctrination that women must reproduce!
Those are the mothers who cannot wait for the weekends to push their children out of the house and to run the streets. They also cannot wait for them to start school so they can have peace and quiet. They also push their children out of the house as soon as they are eighteen. This has been what my relatives, friends, and associates have told me.
One associate who was one of seven children had parents who told her to get out of their house at sixteen and get her own apartment. People from large families that I know indicated that their parents could not wait for them to LEAVE. Another person related to me that her mother told her that she was sick and tired of you --------------- kids(she was one of 6). In small families(1-2 children), the parents are MORE loving, welcoming, and nurturing. They actually ENJOY their children.
I cannot claim to point a finger at anyone. But what I know is that mothering is a role and duty that requires patience and lack of selfishness. If this woman is capable of producing future leaders and maintains a house of love, then bless her. As for me, juggling three as a Single Mom has not been easy and I cannot imagine more than that!
I have no problem with it, providing I am not supporting them throughout the children's lifetime. Coming from a small family, large families have always intrigue me. Some people have that nurturing quality and having a lot of children can be seen as healthy for the unit.
It really, for me, is not about how many children but how the adults do with parenting. I have known couples and singles who have one or two, and they just do not have the nurturer in them. The size of the family is not important to me.
My Mum is one of eight. She is from a Catholic family though and contraception is seen as a sin. Cue the Monty Python song 'Every sperm is sacred!'
It is a thing of the past and not normal. I know some will disagree with me but I would vote that there should be a personal income tax limit on the number of exemptions you get for kids up to 6.
And the state should not be financially supporting the children due to the mother's mental disorder for having this many kids. I do know other big families but the age differences between the oldest and youngest are 12 to 20 years apart unlike Octomom and others who have 6 or 8 kids with just a few years difference. But, hey if you had sextuplets, what are you gonna do. So, of course there will be some exceptions to the proposed law. A single mother or dad should never be allowed to do what she did unless she or he was wealthy.
Jon&Kate+8 had twins and then sextuplets. They didn't plan on either being a multiple birth.
I came from a family of 7 children. From my experience, it is hard to give each child the attention they need. My mother now advises others to only have a couple. My Dad had to work two jobs all of his life to support us. They were Catholics and didn't believe in contraception. There are a few women in this world capable of raising and rearing large families, but they are selfless saints.
If we didn't keep the earth populated challenged by war, famine, disease and other problems that blight the human condition we would die out. More babies. More we need life. It is said to be our most precious gift and we rest assured that the lord will provide for all.
But one woman isn't responsible for bringing up an army of children with little to no means to provide for them. There are some large families that are prosperous and can provide for their children but most families with 12 or more children are working so hard to try and provide for them that they are never home to nurture and care for them and who loses? the children.
I'd like to point out some blatant sexism in this thread whose title is "What do you think of a WOMAN with more than 8 children?"
First of all, regarding families like the Duggars and fundamentalist Christians and Orthodox Jews who believe in large broods, the fathers are equally to blame for having more kids than they can handle without (a) receiving government support and (b) forcing the older children to act as surrogate parents.
Second, what about men who father lots of children with different women and never pay a dime of child support?
Well I don't think it matters how many children you have, but what kind of parents are raising them. Doesn't matter how many children you have as long as you love them!
tussin : that should be a whole different thread(re: dead beat dads).....if you want to start another thread, go for it. There are political threads and cooking threads and just general conversation threads..this just happens to be one about women giving birth to multiple children and not being able to provide for them....yes it takes a man too , sorry you are feeling left out. I didn't mean to make it a sexist thing. Sorry!
money fairy.....First of all, I believe it requires both a woman and a MAN to reproduce......It should be a joint decision. However, this is not always the case, unfortunately.
Eight children sounds like quite a crew. Years ago, there were larger families than there seem to be in this day and age. The reasons for this are endless.
I certainly hope we don't label people as mentally insane due to the number of children they have. What seems "crazy," to some people is quite normal for others. Finances should definitely be a consideration when deciding how many children to have. It is an extremely expensive endeavor to raise a child from birth to college grad or when ever they leave the nest.
In addition to money, it requires, time, effort, focus, responsibility, teaching, discipline, ....a lot of wear and tear on parents.
All of this being said, if a couple is certain they have all that it takes to be good, involved and loving parents to 4-6-8- kids.....and are sure they can "support" such a large family.....who is to tell them they cannot...or that if they do, they have a mental problem?
Personally? Today, in 2012, it seems that 2 children is a nice, safe and comfortable number......but that's just my opinion.
Yes it does depend on whether or not the parents can provide for them mentally emotionally and fiscally. Most these days can not and that is where the problem is, as the parents are both working and never home for the children and never seem to have quality time for them and the older siblings at home are the ones raising the little ones. "Lock Key"/welfare children. Then who loses out? the children.
It really depends on whether or not they can comfortably provide for them w/o government assistance!
I think its purely irressponsible ! There is no way unless you are filty rich AND that raising healthy children is your life mission , father and mother ! Yes anyone in todays world that has six ,seven , eight or more is "slightly off ", Most cant raise one or two without some kind of problems .
ahorseback, thank you for understanding why I think it is a bit unhealthy and as you say extreamly irresponsible to have a huge number of children when they can't be provided for.
It is just plain WRONG for socioeconomic, mental, emotional, and psychological reasons. Even if the parent is a multilmillionaire, he/she cannot devote the prerequisite emotional time to each child-some children are going to get attention while others will benignly neglected, left to their own devices. Children from large families are left to raise themselves.
The large family system is simply pathological to say the least fort the reasons I have delineated previously. Children in large families have no concept of close parental relationships as their primary relationship is primarily with other siblings. Siblings cannot give the nurturance and knowledge that parents can give. Children raising children is quite commonplace in large family environments. Many children who grew up in large families make the LEAST nurturing parents because of their early familial environment. They are of the belief that children ought to raise themselves.
Children develop a poverty consciousness as they have very little as their parents can ill afford to provide for them beyond the rudiments. Children in large families are satisfied with very little and expect this in life. In essence, they LEARN to make do. Many oldest children have to forego their education to help support their families.
Children in such families have little or no medical care. They also have to eat less nutritrious food as nutritious foods are expensive. The averge large family oftentimes have to depend upon outside charities to supplement them socioeconomically.
Yes Yes and Yes!!!! That is what I am trying to say!!! Thank you Thank you Thank you for your sane input on this subject!!!
Moneyfairy, I have said this all my life and in my hubs. You should have seen some of the vitriolic comments I have received in my hubs and forum posts on the subject. I staunchly believe that small families are better overall for the utmost development of the child and a better quality of family life overall. The psychology of the large family is based upon inverse logic, pure and simple.
Amen!!!! Well said!!! Thank you Thank you Thank you!!!
Thank You all for sharing your opinions on a very volitile subject!
I actually grew up in the very middle of ten children in the fifties and sixties , although poor we did have our good memories too , however the mental health alone of each child is soo important ! Not many parents can provide for more than a couple of kids in a healthy and vibrant family setting ! I agree with so many of you ! Not good ! Octomom is a mentaly impared mother !
I have 3 beautiful daughters & have 1 brother & 2 sisters myself and personally think 3-4 children is great as having brother/sisters is fantastic .
I think it takes special people to cope with more than that so I am amazed at families these days with so many children with the issue of transportation and other things . But it is their choice .
For parents who want the large family atmosphere, 3-4 children are aptly enough. The medium sized family of 3-4 children combines the best of the small and large family worlds. The family is small enough for every child to have his/her needs met and for the parent to give each child the individualized and prerequisite attention. None of the children are slighted and neglected.
The number of children are small enough for the parent to exercise the span of control i.e. the parent is not overwhelmed by the number of children. Parents can effectively manage and raise the children themselves without enlisting the oldest/older child to raise the younger children which is quite commonplace in large to very large families.
The family is large enough in that there is always someone there if the child wants to play and/or have a conversation. They are also there for each other and are great friends. In this environment, the child does not lose his/her privacy, does not get lost in the crowd, and does not experince the pitfalls which are rife in large to very large families.
I think gmwilliams has brought up many important points here. My Mother in law was raised in a family of 9 children. They lived in such a tiny house, it was about 500 square ft. 3 of the brothers slept under the kitchen table. The oldest girls had to take care of the younger children. It was during the Depression, so the Mother was busy gardening vegetables and canning and bottling them so there would be food in winter. They all wore hand me down clothes and got teased at school. I thought they were a big, close family when I first met them and could figure out who was who and what husband/wife they married, and who their kids were. Then I realized the extreme jealousies they had with each other, which carried over to the next generation. My husband still does not speak to his sister, as he was the favorite, and she hates him. Food is a big issue too, if they attend a party and the food isn't served immediately, they leave in a huff. It could be a child's B-day party where you cut the cake at the end, after the child blows out the candle and opens gifts. But if you won't cut the cake as soon as they arrive, they leave. I suppose they learned to grab whatever they got to eat, but it's no excuse to be behaving that way a generation later. Plus most of them are hoarders too. There is not a psychologically sound one in the family. I understand there wasn't much birth control, but when it's at a point where your kids have no food or clothes, maybe you should start saying "no" to sex.
Jean, A MULTILLION THANK YOUs. I said the same thing. My parents came from EXTREMELY LARGE families. I mean anaconda sized families. My mother was the oldest of ten and my father was the youngest son in a family of eleven. My maternal aunts and uncles had next to nothing and if it was not for my maternal great aunt, they would not have clothes nor other important essentials. My mother had to work her way through high school and nursing school and had to work to support the family. My maternal grandparents did not think of the children at all. My mother was the family mascot and so was my aunt, who was the 3rd child and the 2nd sister.
My maternal grandparents did not lift a figure to improve themselves nor their children. The children had to raise themselves or my aunt was the one who raised them before she left home. My mother left home at 14, only to visit intermittedly. She worked her life to get the parents a home. Out of the ten children, three was what one could describe as educated, affluent, and middle class. The other seven were poor to impoverished. Two aunts had early teenage pregnancies because they did not receive the prerequite parental attention. Two of those aunts had to take dead end jobs to raise their children. They were highly resentful and jealous of those who are more successful than they were.
I was the brunt of one of my aunt's jealousy and hatred because I was more socioeconomically affluent than she was.
In the family, there is covert jealousy. The less affluent ones expect the more affluent ones to support them or give them money. This has extended to the next generation. They are particulary envious of the youngest child, who achieved the most success. When my mother worked hard to support the parents and the younger siblings, another child(the youngest) was born. My father related to me that she was not happy about this. Anyone who says that they were happy in large families are in denial. Jean, many people in large families "say" that they were "happy" but when you hear their unguarded conversation in their vulnerable moments, they were, in all actuality, quite miserable. No child in his/her right mind likes growing up impoverished, with cast off and hand me down clothes, eating inferior food, just making do, have little or no parental attention, having an older sibling raising him/her instead of a parent, working for most of his/her childhood, and oftentimes foregoing an education to supplement your parents' income.
Jean, the poster who stated that children from large families are happier is so mistaken. The life of a large family has an inverse psychology and ethos to that of the small family. My father's family was worse. None were close and were estranged from each other. I have noticed by dealing with people from large families, the animus they have for people of small families. They consider the latter to be "spoiled", "selfish' and other pejorative adjectives because they believe that since they are impoverished and struggling that this should be an acceptable lifestyle, others should be doing the same thing. The concept that others are affluent socioeconomically and can easily obtain things is a total anathema to such people. Many people from large families are quite jealous of those from small families.
Jean, many parents of large families do not plan for their children. They have the concept of whatever happens, happens. If you visit the blogs on large families, you will see this. Such parents believe that if a child struggles, well, tough nuggets. All the parents care about is "family life" and "how nice it is to have children growing up with each other." They clearly are unconcerned about the ramifications of their actions on the children. Many parents of large families are clearly unconcerned about their children. The attitude is that children should raise themselves and do the best they can, if they swim, fine, and if they sink, well, toooo bad. It is simply NO EXCUSE for large families in this age of contraception.
Also attended school with children from large families. They, too, were impoverished. Not one was middle class. The average person from a large family have a poverty mentality and a poverty consciousness. They were raised with only the bare rudiments of life and little else. As a result of their early home environment, they are not linterested in striving for and living a better life. They are content to be living from hand to mouth. Struggle is an integral part of their lives as they are so accustomed to having so little as children that they cannot conceive of any other way to life. So when I write about large families, besides books, I have FIRSTHAND knowledge of the struggle, poverty, and other pathologies afflicting those from large families.
To moneyfairy, you have opened up an excellent thread. I have many threads on the subject and have posted my response to others' threads on the large family. However, besides mine threads, yours is the most realistic thread. Moneyfairy, there are going to be some who will be quite negative in their response to your thread as they were in the comment section to my hubs on the subject.
Thank you for sharing and describing how totally irresponsible having large families are. Amen!!!
The only woman I have a problem with are those like Octomom, who wanted to have many children to break a record. Which she did, and for which she received a huge amount of cash, not only from those trying to get her story, but people who felt sorry for her children. Now there is outrage against her, as she says she wants to get the same kind of treatment so that she can have quads. She alread has 8 children, and now she wants more? What's wrong with this woman? Is the publicity she is receiving that important she is willing to collect children like dolls? They almost a trophy to her.
One type of women that was left out of this discussion is the woman who marries multiple men, and creates 1 or two children with each husband, just so that she can eventually divorce him and collect large amounts of money in child support. I have a cousin who has an ex-wife who has been married 5 times, and between all of her Ex husbands she raised 9 children, all on alimony payments and child support, to the tune of $5,000.00 a month or more, because of the men she married had good paying jobs. Now that her children are grown, do you think she wants anything to do with them? NO!!! My cousins's daughter Stacy said she had not seen her mother since she was 14, and didn't care if she ever saw her again. Her biological mother. Not a step mother.
So there are women out there, who should not have children.
I believe it all depends on whether that mom (and dad) can support those 8 children. If she is dependent on government assistance, then it's not fair to the rest of society.
If you are Stephen Spielberg or another rich person, you can afford to give a poor child a better life. But when the number of kids gets past 4 or more, the older ones have to be the parents, and as I said in my larger post, many of them aren't really quite right in the head.I would imagine the mother is depleted after being pregnant so much, and they didn't have the prenatal care we have today. Now you know if you are pregnant if you are only a week so and go on vitamins and have care, you have diet guidelines. I have experienced the jealousies and outright hatred my inlaws coming from a family of 9 experience. Interestingly, 3 were men, and they all left home as fast as they could. The women all live in the same town, only blocks away from where they were born. They are in their 70's or 80's now, and still argue about "who Dad loved more." The next generation, like my husband and his sister, don't talk. He doesn't want anything to do with her. All she cares about are material things, but now she overspent and can't afford her fake and affluent lifestyle. We live in a small house, but only had one child, grown now, and the house is perfect for us. The rest of them are all the same, still fighting about things from their parent's generations. It's different if the parents have something to offer, but these kids didn't get to go to school past 6th or 7th grade, they had to care for younger sibs. It's so sad.
I agree with rasta1 (comment below) in that we can't judge whether a mother is mentally capable or incapable of having 8 children. I have a good friend who has seven children and would have like to have more. She is a wonderful mother and her family gets along very well. She even has her own business (www.HannahKeeley.com) which encourages moms to be their best, especially for those who have multiple children. I have also known mothers who have only had one to two children that were the most awful mothers in the world with neglect and abuse. It all depends on the individual, and you really can't judge a person by your own family's personal experience. Each one is different and unique in her own way. However, I don't believe that mothers should continue having children if she can't afford to do it on her own (without government assistance).
maximumfatloss:That's what I am saying if you are sane and can afford to feed and take care of them mentally emotionally and physically go for it. But to continue having children you can't take care of is unhealthy for the child and society as a whole . There has to be some kind of responsibility don't you think? Some people can deal with a whole brewed of children while like you said above some shouldn't even have them at all.
Jean, what you have stated is so true. The large family is indeed pathological. Children raise themselves or each other. Oldest children are the REAL parents instead of the parents. Parents are distant and nonnurturing. Children learn a poverty and struggling consciousness. Children from large families are LUCKY if they complete SECONDARY EDUCATION so they are taken out of school to support their families. TERTIARY EDUCATION AND BEYOND is totally unheard of in large families.
As to the statement that children from large families are "more comprising, sharing, and altruistic", this is totally untrue. Children from large families have pathologies that children from small families do not have. Children from large families,because they receive little or no parental attention, have unmet needs. They are forever searching for attention, either positive or negative. They also have no sense of self because they are inculcated with the premise that having a sense of self is akin to being selfish. They are told that the individual is nothing and that the group is everything. They tend to think and act in groups. They are quite uncomfortable with being an individual and doing things alone. My mother, who is from a large family, does not like to things alone-she ALWAYS want someone to go with her.
Many people from large families are quite needy as a result of an earlier affection deprived environment. There are people from large families who are quite selfish as a result of always having to put themselves last in their childhoods. Many people from large families are quite territorial because they never had their own space as children. The culture of the large family is diametrically different from that of the small family.
Parents who have large families are totally unthinking and uncaring about the welfare of their children. They do not care how miserable their children's quality of life is emotionally, psychologically, socioeconomically, and mentally. They do not care if their oldest child have no childhood/adolescence and friends. They do not care if their children obtain an education. They do not care if their children end up without educations, in dead end jobs, and impoverished. All these parents care about is having a LARGE NUMBER OF CHILDREN, pure and simple.
Jean: Well said!!! words of wisdom from experience.
A woman with 8 children does not have a mental problem. This is due to the fact that a woman who has no children can have a mental problem. Therefore, it would not be rational to assume insanity without analysing each individual.
It is also dependent on the culture of the individual. Some cultures interpret having children as a bad thing while other cultures interpret having children as a good thing. It is a sensitive topic with very large dynamics.
rasta 1: You are correct in saying that it is a very sensitive subject. Thanks for sharing your opinion. Also a woman with no childrern is a highly responsible human being, not bringing debt on society but rather being courteous of the rest of the world by not overpopulating it.
Again you are assuming that a woman with eight children is irresponsible. This is not logical because a woman with no children or even a single kid can be deemed as irresponsible. Therefore, it is inconsistent to assume that a woman with 8 kids is irresponsible. Each individual would have to be analysed specifically.
It is not fair to assume that each child will be a burden to society. Each child has an opportunity to make a positive contribution to society. It does not matter whether they are from a small or large family.
It is the way how society treats children that helps to shape their identity. Putting children into negative stereotypical expectations can help to kill their dreams. Society is good at this.
People from different societies view things differently. China has a large population, so they put everyone to work, demanding an output from each individual, it does not matter if they have a 100 brothers.
USA puts the kids and family on welfare demanding no output which affects social dynamics of the children and parents. Therefore, they end up playing into the role of failure because they have already become demons in the eyes of society.
The social dynamics of most first world countries have pre-designed schools of thoughts that govern the amount of children that each person can have. It may be even stitched into the constitution that it is illegal to have more than one kid. The populace will be brainwashed into accepting these terms and conditions by different methodologies initiated by the government.
By slowly progressing this idea that having children should be a monitored event, Society can decide who are those that are fit to have eight children. This will introduce prejudice based on the socio-economic background of each candidate.
On the other hand, the UK, especially England is trying to covertly persuade the women to have more children. This is because there population is old and dying. They need more children in order to ensure maximum output of its GDP within the next 20 years.
I have experienced the worst side of the spectrum with large families because of the nutty one I married into. I agree with most of what gmwilliams and moneyfairy are saying. But rasta 1 is an old hub friend of mine, and makes a logical arguement. Just because a woman has a large family doesn't mean she is irresponsible. In some cultures it is normal to have large families, it just changed in the US when we were no longer an agrarian society and didn't need so many helping hands. Also, look at China, killing off all the girl babies and now the men are marrying their cousins.
I have a relative who takes in foster children, and often she and her husband had about 10 kids in the house. But they were very active in their church, and had a lot of help, so the kids had mulitple adults to go to for guidance. They never had to "mother" the younger kids.
Societies in different countries have other circumstances. I still stand by what I said about my M in law who was 1 of 9 children. From what I heard over the years, they had little supervision, and that's an understatement. Even now when my husband talks about stuff he did with his cousins, I wonder, "Where were the adults at the time?" But I'm the mother of 1, who had so much attention. I still think family planning is important, and was speaking here from my own experience. But I do understand other cultures are different. I see many young Moms in the US staying home with the kids again, when about 20 yrs ago, they would have put them into daycare with strangers as soon as they were 6 weeks old. So societies change.
rasta1: I'm just saying that there should be some resposibility taken where children are concerned. If you can care for an army of children , feed them clothe them and love them and give them the education they need , Great! But if you look at most large families you will see that there is alot of neglect on many levels and that sadens me.
Wow. I think the people who insist all large families are poor, abusive or somehow immoral suffer from a severe prejudice. One that seems focused on women, as if men are somehow not involved. Plenty of large families are wonderful families. And plenty of small families, including affluent ones, are pretty horrible environments for kids.
The only thing that matters is the care of the children. And I think actually attacking hubbers from large families as psychological abnormal is horrible and hostile. Why assume people are in denial (lying? sick?) just because their life experience doesn't match what you think it should be?
What exactly is the motivation here? Why all the hate and judgmental rhetoric?
Yes the care of the children is the most important thing and when parents are not there to tend to their childrens needs( mentally,emotionally physically and fiscally) that's when the issue of the large family kicks in as a problem and yes there are plenty of spoiled little rich kids that don't get attention from their parents either(that's a whole other thread). All I'm saying is that children from large families seem to have a harder time in life than others. There is no predjudice there, just pure fact. Please read all of the above of what others have personally experienced in their lives from large families, it's not all pretty and perfect as you say. I'm sure there may be some large families that seem all wonderful on the surface but if you asked each of the children from those large families after they have grown up what it was like ,I think you'd be singing a different tune.
There is no hate on my part but rather a sadness for the blatent ignorance and irresponsibility of others where children are concerned. It's just sad. I just started this thread to ask others opinions on the subject of large families and the health of the mother and the children. Is it healthy for the mother to give birth to a ton of children? Is it healthy for children to be neglected and impoverished because their parents are too selfish to use birth control?
They certainly do. In school, they oftentimes do not possess the prerequisite skills to academically succeed as intellectual paraphenalia was little to nonexistent in such homes due to poverty and parents struggling to provide the rudiments. I read that in many homes of large families, there is no computer, books, and/or other intellectual forms of stimulation. This translates into children from large families having no prior academic training. Many of them enter school, quite unprepared.
They also receive little food and/or clothing. They also consume poor food and clothing as nutritious food and clothing are often costly. They also have little or no medical and/or dental care. They have to make do in the meager socioeconomic circumstances they are in.
Since they receive little or no parental attention, they have to raise themselves and be left to their own devices. In other words, THEY ARE MOSTLY UNDISCIPLINED and UNSUPERVISED. This leads to them into oftentimes deleterious and delinquent activities. Many gang members and juvenile delinquents are FROM LARGE FAMILIES. Also girls from large families tend to become pregnant early because they are seeking outside affection because they had little or no parental attention or affection at home.
In terms of education, they are THE LEAST EDUCATED. They are oftentimes lucky if they complete secondary education. Many children from large families are often pulled out of school to help support their parents and younger siblings. TERTIARY EDUCATION is an IMPOSSIBLE DREAM for those from large families. This means that they will be in dead end jobs, earning less and being poor or impoverished all their lives.
Also, I have read studies that those from large families,because of their impoverished conditions, are more likely to develop alzheimer's disease in their later years. To say that children from large families have hellish lives is an understatement to say the least. Moneyfairy, tell some people this is akin to the Romans teaching civilization and culture to the Huns.
P.S. Most children from large families, if they ARE TRUTHFUL and NOT IN ABJECT AND DELUSIONAL DENIAL, will state to you how miserable they are and how they wish that things were different-very, very different. Even those who purport that they " were soooo happy", reveal when they are in their weaker moments, how deprived they were and how they envy those from small families. I have seen this firsthand. My aunt hated it, she revealed to a friend over the telephone how her childhood was taken from her as she had to raise the younger siblings. My mother bitched how she hated being the oldest and wished that she was the youngest. Being in a large family is akin to being in hell, I would not wish this on my worst nemesis!
I think psycheskinner brought up a similar point about foster families as I did. In that situation, the family has resources and big hearts, and wants to help needy children. Normally they have a good sized home, the backing of a church or other organization, money, and other adult or teen family members willing to help out. That's different than someone who keeps having baby after baby without thinking of how they will take care of her/him. I mentioned Spielberg because I know he and his wife have adopted and seem pretty normal, by Hollywood standards.
I have been married into the family where my M in law was 1 of 9 for 33 years, and most of them have passed on now. Most of the women married up, and got to have their own homes. But they were still fearful and jealous. They saved everything, even used tea bags. They would go to affairs and stuff any free food into their purses, it was so embarrassing. Their children were a mixed bag, but many of them are scarred and if you were not close to them you would not realize it. But they all repeat the mantra, "We didn't have much, but we had love." I never saw much evidence of that.
My son is a kindergarten teacher, and he says the larger families mostly send their kids to school with no learning at all. By age 5, you should know your ABCs, how to read about 25 sight words, be able to identify numbers and count to at least 20, etc. Plus they don't stand in a straight line, listen to instructions, yell out w/o raising their hands, etc. So they get put in "special needs" classes, which costs the town $100,000.00 a year per child. It's good they can get help (the ones who really do have special needs) but the ones he is talking about were just neglected and we all pay for them.
Jean, you have brought up an excellent point. Your son is right. Many children from large families are far behind academically. In my class, those who were from large families were the poorer students in my class. They were C and D students. They were also the worst behaved and the rowdiest students in the class. They clearly had no appreciation for learning and education. I discussed this in my hubs on the subject.
In large families, basic survival is stressed, not an appreciation for education and higher cultural values. Academic achievement and education are not valued in the large family environment. Intellectualism is considered to be superfluous in large families, all they value is just bare survival. Children in large families also are the most uncooperative, bully and start fights with other children. I have witnessed this firsthand.
Children in large families do not have the individual consciousness like those in small families. They act in groups. I have seen this with associates who came from large families. It is good that this thread happened so we thinking and abstute people can tell the truth regarding large families. Jean, you are so correct when you state that many people from large families are hoarders. Yes, they are in response to their impoverished environment and they DON'T SHARE either despite what some pundits claim. I find people from small families, including onlies such as myself, are more generous and more likely to share with strangers. Many people from large families are very uncharitable and selfish . They are also clannish and highly distrustful of strangers. They are extremely insular in their outlook and psychological makeup.
There is a MARKED difference between those from large families and those from small families. There are more negative aspects in the former while there are more positive aspects in the latter Many children from large families are undeveloped academically, psychologically, mentally, and emotionally. Yes, they tend to be ill mannered and unpolished but what does one expect where there is little parenting training and interaction and when children are left to their devices?
In large families, parents do not teach their children, they believe that children should raise themselves. They are left unsupervised. What they learn, they pick up on their own. The concept of normal family life where there is interaction between parent and child is nonexistent in large families. In the large family environment, the oldest child, often a child himself/herself, raise the chlldren. When children raise each other, there is no advanced learning occurring. That explains why many children in large families have more rudimentary vocabularies than their counterparts in small families where there is more parent interaction. Many people from large families when they become parents do not believe in nor practice interaction with their own children, they are of the school that children raise themselves and learn from osmosis. The concept that parents teach their children is totally foreign to them. That is why many people from large families make nonnurturing and noninteractive parents.
Families with 6 or more children account for 0.4% of the American population today. It is pretty rare. The population growth by childbirth would not grow the american population significantly. It is actually immigration that grows the American population. The recent propaganda strategy to create fear in women to not have more than 4 children has been successful.
Those who grew up in large families in the US are probable over 40 years old. The US only became wealthy again within the last 30 years (boom phase). therefore those growing up in large families did not benefit from the American boom phase, because they were the ones that initiated the boom phase and have been awarded for their hard work by being placed in nursery homes. It is those from large families that grew America.
(The BABY BOOMERS BUILT AMERICA, how ironic is that)
The information I have also researched implies that it is those individual from large families that placed USA into a production phase such as John D Rockefeller. His father had a second family to add insult to injury. There are many other pioneers that grew up in large families that helped the GDP output of America.
Ironically today, it is the children from the small families that are destroying the USA today and taking the worlds economies down as well. I am saying that those from small families has the same potential for failure as large family.
In my culture it is believed that each child that enters the world has an equal opportunity to become successful or a failure (50/50) whether or not they are rich or poor, crippled or able bodied or has 10 sisters.
reference: http://www.census.gov/ and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_boomer and http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_were_john … s_siblings
Read THE POPULATION BOMB by Paul R. Erhlich which explains the effect of overpopulation on society,including the depletion of natural resources and the overall impoverishment of society. That is ALL I have to say on the matter.
When people did not know any better, lived in agrarian societies, and had no access to birth control, large families were commonplace and oftentimes necessary. However, with the advent of urbanization and increasing modernization which includes better contraceptive technology, large families are not necessary, in fact, they are a detriment to a progressive society.
Surely, you as an educated person should know better. In countries, where there is the most children per population, there is the most poverty. Conversely, in countries, where there is the least children per population, there is the most wealth. As countries become more developed, people begin to have smaller families because it is beneficial for the overall benefit of the family socioeconomically and otherwise.
Read Julian Simon - technological change in agriculture as counter argument!
The problem is population distribution not overpopulation - people tend to crowd the cities looking for job, nice amenities and all the pleasures the urban cosmopolitan life can give them. The population density is higher in urban areas - crowded against rural areas.
Birth rate is decreasing all over the world.
Women in more developed countries have an average number of children of two or lesser while in less developed countries it is still more than three. A child in a more developed country however can consume a lot more resources than the equivalent of so much children in less developed countries - cows milk, diaper etc.
The last statement means when a child has a high and affluent quality of life. It is called middle class and better. More goods, supplies= a better socioeconomic way of life. That is what all good thinking people strive for. No one in their thinking mind wants to be poor, struggling, and living from hand to mouth. For children in large families, such is a way of life.
Some people fail to realize is that the more people per family, the more competition there is for the financial, emotional, and psychological resources of the parent. The majority of large families are poor to impoverished. Children have poor nutrition and medical care among other things. They are oftentimes do without the simplest things. They are behind academically and cultural because there is little to no monies for books and other cultural activities. Their overall quality of life is quite abysmal indeed. So my late father used to say,"Some people are just HARD to learn."
You are generalizing too much Mam. Couples should have reproductive rights as to how, when and how many children they like to have, that is what I am saying!
As to population, resources and environment, facts are facts. Wealth and consumption are concentrated in the more developed countries and they have far more requirements for resources, - renewable and non renewable. Richer countries, due to more advanced way of life needs to have equivalent resources. It is a matter of number of people (high population) who are consuming less and small number of population who have high maintenance and requirements for these resources.
It is unfortunate that our ancestors did not know any better and gave birth to an ungrateful society. Every person on this earth is descended from a timeline where their ancestors constituted of a large family. In fact, we are all cousins based on genetic research. Unless some people came from space.
(Therefore, everyone on earth carries the insanity gene and is insane)
The world economy is in a buss phase. All the countries that have small families are going broke. This has LITTLE to do with family size. If small families equates to wealth then all small families would be wealthy. Then, leading couples to have no children in order to protect their wealth. This actually happens. Much to their own demise they realise that wealth has many other dynamics to be taken into considerations.
Distribution of scarce resources also constitutes taxes, imports, death, injury, wars, water, oil, stock market, internet. Family is just one of the factors to be taken into consideration.
My response to your post-balderdash, what preposterousness ! The countries with small families are the ones who are progressing and becoming economically wealthier. It is the countries with the large families that are mired in poverty with little chance of becoming wealtheir. Such countries are getting poorer and poorer..........one day, such countries will implode.
What do I think of [a] woman with more than 8 children?
You want to know my first thought? Hate to say it, but it was "her pelvic floor must be knackered".
OK, carry on with the mud slinging.
ood one, Empress! Something else besides the pelvis is knackered. Such women need OUTSIDE hobbies, don't you think? If they HAD OUTSIDE hobbies, they would not have been knackered! LOL!
On a more serious note, my own reaction is "each to their own", coupled with a shrug. Although from a personal standpoint, I can't understand wanting to have that many children.
EmpressFelicity: Thank you for sharing your opinion!!! And I can't understand either wanting to have that many children and the mother would certainly be knackerd. Craziness
Wow there have certainly been a diverse group of responses and I appreciate everyones opinion. Thank you very much for sharing. I think I have had my answer filled to the fullest but you all can continue on if you like but as for me the discussion is over. I think everyone has their freedom of choice where birthing and babies are concerned, although I respect everyones opinions I don't nessisarily agree with them . So keep on keepin on and just be responsible with your choices and really think about the children you are all bringing into the world. Can you provide for them? Can you care for them? Are you healthy giving birth to a big brewed? Are the children healthy that come out? Just some things to take into consideration.
thank you for all your replies.!!!!
To rasta1, Nightwork4, and prettydarkhorse, this was quite a lively discussion and each one is entitled to his/her opinion and synopsis on the subject. No hard feelings and God bless and keep you all. We are ALL ONE.
NO ONE can stop us from multiplyin' and WE INTEND to DO SO! If our children have inferior food, no health/medical care, and have to struggle. Well, we REALLY DON'T care about that at all. We will just get OUTSIDE aid to help us.
Oh DEAR God, haven't these people EVER heard of BIRTH CONTROL?
eGAD, what are these people THINKING?
(Totally ashast and speechless).
We also INTEND to have children until we are COMMANDED to STOP. So what if we can't afford to properly raise and support them. If they DO WITHOUT, that's life. WE want a LARGE BROOD regardless, it's OUR PREROGATIVE!
They must be out of THEIR minds!
My only experience with a large family was my husband's, his Mom was one of 9 children. I have never seen such jealousy, lack of love and attention, phobias, or just plain neglect. I thought it would be great being married into what I thought was a big, close family.
As I got to know them, I realized most of them hated each other. I never saw such intense indifference, they mostly didn't want anything to do with each other as they got older. He always told stories about blowing up dynamite and other dangerous things, when he was about 8 yrs. old. Sometimes they would get nostalgic, but mostly the stories told that the oldest ones were burdened by the younger, all they had were castoff clothes, and they all did weird things to get attention. There was never enough food, even in later years they expected to eat immediately when they arrived at your doorstep if they came on the holidays. They never had presents for important occasions, or went on vacations. They never ate in a restaurant, and continued to be suspicious of all these things all their lives.
My husband came to embrace the way I was raised (with one sibling) and seemed to love my parents more than his. We only had one child, so we could give him the best. My husband passed on early this year, and his sister and most of his relatives never called me again, after I was part of their dysfunctional family for 39 years.
Jean, +1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 spot on! This behavior is typical of large/very large families. My parents and some extended relatives came from large/very large families. I would say anaconda sized families. I also associated with children who came from large/very large families(6 and more kids per household).
Large/very large families aren't loving. That was the idyllic stereotype that was presented to get people to have large families while deriding smaller families. The average large/very large family is competitive, cutthroat, dysfunctional, and pathological in many ways. Wrote numerous hubs on the large/very large family and it AIN'T pretty at all. In large famililes, there is an UNEQUAL parity of treatment. The oldest child has to be an adult in very early childhood while the youngest coast along in late adolescence.
There is intense competition for parental resources of what VERY LITTLE there is. There is jealously galore between the oldest/youngest, oldest/middle, middle/youngest, and older/younger. There is also mental, emotional, and psychological abuse in large/very large families. There is also neglect in large/very large families as parents CAN'T effective raise such a large brood of children. There is also a VERY HIGH LEVEL of CORPORAL punishments such as spankings and beatings in large/very large families.
Children from large/very large families exist in a state of poverty and want. It is quite commonplace for children of large/very large families to live in a socioeconomic state of struggle. There is no such thing as monies in large families even for the bare rudiments of life. Children of large/very large families HARDLY HAVE ENOUGH of anything. Life is a constant uphill battle. I have written about this in my large family hubs.
Children from large/very large families consume inferior quality food and byproducts as more nutritious foods are prohibitively expensive for the typical large/very large family. They also have very little or no medical, health, and/or dental care. They wear inferior quality of clothing which no one else would wear or was thrown out. Their clothing is usually castoffs, charity clothing, or clothing from secondhand/thrift shops.
Yes, their clothing is of inferior and poor quality. My mothers and her 9 siblings wore castoff clothing and my classmates from large families wore castoff and/or thrown away clothing. Children from large/very large families live less than a human existence overall. I freqiently gave away clothes for children of large/very large families to wear inclusing my cousins who were EIGHT children. Also gave children of large/very large families FOOD and vitamins.
Studies have consistently shown that there is a STRONG correlation between large/very large families and poverty. The larger the family, the GREATER likelihood that there is poverty. We all know the deleterious and detrimental effects of poverty on children emotionally, mentally, physically, and psychologically. This explains why children from large/very large families are behind when they start school; they come from homes when they unprepared. The average large/very large family have no books or other kinds of educational paraphernalia in the home. They are lucky if they have the bare necessities as I have reiterated. Couple that with poor nutrition and health.
Jean, children from large/very large families lead quite a hellish existence. You are so on target regarding large/very large family life. I, too, have seen it from my classmates and relatives who were from large/very large families. Of course, there is bitter jealousy and rivalry; however, many people from large/very large families live in the Land of Denial. They loudly purport that their family life was "so lovely and wonderful". However, upon close inspection, they state how horrid their childhoods ACTUALLY WERE.
I also would like to add that children from large/very large families are at the lowest of the socioeconomic totem pole. They have to work to purchase the things that other normal children have. I remember in school if one loan such children things, IT WOULDN'T be returned-in essence, they keep the stuff that one loans them. My father aptly stated that children from large/very large families are used to the worst and lowest that life has to offer. That is very sad Jean.
Imagine growing up in an environment where one lives on top of one another with NO PRIVACY. Imagine not having enough food to go around and the food you eat is inferior and meat and fish are a RARITY in your house. Imagine not having any books and other educational paraphernalia in the house. Imagine your mother being continuously pregnant and popping 'em out although your family environment is CROWDED enough and there is NOT ENOUGH to go around yet she gets pregnant just the same.
Imagine not attending/participating in educational/cultural activities, travelling, eating at fine restaurants, nor wearing better quality clothing. Imagine working at a time when other children are experiencing a less encumbered childhood. Imagine having to help assist your parents socioeconomically. Imagine having to raise and fend for YOURSELF.Imagining dropping out of school to work to help your parents because they were too selfish to use intelligent family planning. Extremely sad, Jean indeed.
Jean, that is why most people from large/very large families from childhood HATE and DETEST us people from small families. Have you noticed the venom that those from large/very large families have towards us. They snarl that we are spoiled. They hate that we are afforded opportunities that they DIDN'T have as children. They hate the fact that we live at a quite comfortable socioeconomic level beyond pure basic existence. They hate the fact that we are more attuned to higher levels of human needs where they are MIRED to the lower, more basic levels of human needs.
One can easily tell who is from a large/very large family and who is from a small family by his/her basic demeanor and attitude. Those from large/very large families are more rough around the edges, happy to be living at a poverty or near poverty level, do not want the better things of life, believe that poverty is a normal lifestyle, and are distrustful of socioeconomic betterment. Upper middle class living and/or better is seen as extravagance to the average person from a large/very large families. What is middle class to a person from a large/very large families is poor to us from small families. There is a different cultural milieu in the large family that ISN'T present in the small family. The milieu of the large/very large family is a hardscrabble, hard knock one. It is bare, instinctual survival on the VERY LOWEST common denominator.
People from large/very large families are only concerned with the MOST RUDIMENTARY of needs and see HIGHER needs such as culture, beauty, and refinement as totally wasteful and unnecessary. Jean, you are right in your analysis regarding people from large/very large families. They exist in states that we would find very basic and raw. They exist in a world/universe that is VASTLY DIFFERENT from those from small families. One can more aptly assert that the world/universe/society of the large/very large family is APART from that of small family society.
Jean, the psychology, culture, and the milieu of large/very large families are divergently different. They possess an inverse psychology, culture, and milieu. The average parent of large/very large families really do not care about the socioeconomic, mental, emotional, and psychological wellbeing of their children. They feel that children are just numbers, not individuals. All they want is THAT LARGE FAMILY even they go socioeconomically under. Yes, one can say that parents of large/very large families are acting UNTHINKINGLY and SELFISHLY.
Jean, you are correct that children from large/very large families DON'T receive any attention. That is why they are venomously jealous of us from small families who receive parental attention. These are the children who either slink into the background or become loudly and aggressively pushy to GET attention. Noted example is Madonna. Madonna, the middle of 8 children, stated in her bio that she had to be pushy and LOUD to get attention.
Children from large/very large families are looked down upon by the rest of society. They are viewed as third class citizens. In essence, they are deemed to be outsiders. They are the objects of derision and sympathy. My father again aptly that people view people from large/very large families as severely disadvantaged and their parents as either stupid, thoughtless, and selfish for it has to be those components for people to have MORE children than they can actually take care of emotionally, mentally, psychologically, and MOST of all, financially. As Dr. Phil states some people just DON'T get it!
What is this 'PARENT' thinking, if it all? Really, come on NOW!
P.S. Jean, you are right we from small families have it THE BEST. I had the best clothes, best food, never experienced socioeconomic struggle as a child, adolescence, and very young adult. All my education was paid for. Travelled. If I had a child, I would have ONE child so that he/she can have the best socioeconomically and psychologically.
Children from small families DO FARE BETTER from those from large families. Children from small families tend to be more socioeconomically affluent while children from large/very large families tend to be either poor or impoverished. The former aren't burdened with parenting/raising younger siblings thus having a NORMAL childhood/adolescence. The former also have privacy and aren't living on top of each other. Children from small families also tend to be THE MOST educated while children from large/very large families tend to be THE LEAST educated.
It is extremely difficult to acculturate those from large/very large families on the virtues of small family life. It is good Jean that your husband saw THE LIGHT. Many from large/very large oftentimes defend the large family although it is quite dysfunctional and pathological and is no longer appropriate in this postmodern era of advanced technology, social networks, and contraception. The average person from a large/very large family is so MIRED in the past. They exist in a land called DENIAL, adamantly defending a deleterious and hazardous lifestyle. This attitude and pathos are analogous to the Waffen SS in World War II, knowing that the war was lost, fanatically fighting on, often to the DEATH.
Nice talking to you, Jean. Fight the FIGHT for family planning and the small family! We are SISTERS in arms. Large/very large families are INDEED evil and aberrant. It is tantamount to child abuse, believe it or not. That is ALL I have to say on this subject at hand!
I do fight the fight. I'm always the one who gets to talk to everyone else's kids about sex and birth control for some reason. I love children, but my scoliosis is hereditary, and I didn't want any child to go through all I did, I had my first spinal fusion at age 6. I was smart and had a tutor, so although I couldn't go to school for the year, I stayed at the level of my peers. We just had the one son, but he is a treasure, and I don't know what I'd do without him now.
I was surprised that my husband took to the customs of our small family, I have one brother 10 yrs. younger than I. But my husband loved him like a brother, and adored all our holiday celebrations. His family didn't put up a Christmas tree or exchange presents for birthdays, or celebrate job promotions or any of that. He was so much fun, because he reacted to all these customs with such enthusiasm. When I miss him I try to remember the big smiles on his face when he was wrapping a gift, or how much he loved a meal in a restaurant. His Mom didn't cook, once his Dad worked the second shift, the kids had to take care of themselves. I guess it was a habit from her upbringing. So he was a great cook, too!
We have to fight THAT fight, Jean. Every child should be planned and grow up in the best of socioeconomic circumstances, instead of living at the most basic, primitive level without even the basic rudiments. No child should endure that because of a parent who mindlessly reproduce at will, without being much concerned about the ramifications of his/her act upon the children. Mothers of large-very large families are selfish to the infinite degree, they don't work and the poor father has the onus of supporting an evergrowing number of children which isn't fair to him. The small family(1-2 children) is BEST for all concerned. Children receive the utmost of care financially/emotionally/ psychologically, women can further their education and pursue careers, helping their husbands socioeconomically. I have a word for women who have large-very large families and if I say, I would be banned..........permanently. Have a Blessed Night Jean and continue the fight!
P.S. many children from large-very large families as adults are emotionally needy because they did not receive the prerequisite parental attention as children. They are always LOOKING for that attention in one way or another. Also when they become parents, they seem to be in competition and envious of their children, particularly if their children are in better socioeconomic circumstances than they. When you hear a parent tell a child that he/she has it too easy, there is a tinge of envy there. Many parents from large-very large families who grew up poor and became affluent are envious of their children because the latter have opportunities that they did not have as children and they express that envy often in passive-aggressive ways. They also envy their children for the attention that the latter receive as they did not receive that attention. Their parenting style is quite perfunctory because they did not receive adequate attention as children. Their parenting style is also cold and uninvolved because that is what they learned from their parents.
WELL, you acknowledged that poverty is more prevalent in large/very large families while affluence is more prevalent in small families. That means that children from large families are content with third, fourth, even fifth best. You further admitted that children from large famlies consume inferior quality food, wear throwaways/castoffs, clothes that NO ONE wants, have poor living conditions, living on top of each other, hmmm......what else is there to say. You fully admitted my point.
Because of this impoverished condition, those from large/very large families LOVE poverty and find bettering oneself socioeconomically to be an anathema. They are content to survive at the struggling-poverty level, having a scarcity consciousness. You have proven what I have written in my hubs and studied in sociology classes. Scratch a person from a large/very large family and one will find a person contend to live at the most rudimentary level without any amenities. You have succinctly proven my point!
So YOU, as a very highly educated person, are advocating having children willy nilly, even if they are impoverished and barely have enough of the basic necessities. You are further advocating that it does not matter if children have to go to bed hungry, work from early chlldhood, have no amenities, just have children w/o concern if they have inferior food, very little or poor medical/health/dental care, do not care if they have a great socioeconomic quality of life but have LOTS and LOTS and LOTS of children even they have no dancing/music lessons and other cultural enrichment programs. What you are advocating that children should have the lowest possible level of existence, not a civilized existence at all but a bare, harsh, hardscrabble existence where children have to STRUGGLE and FIGHT for food, clothing, and shelter with NOTHING else, not to live as human beings but just existing, if THAT. Really NOW!
I know of two families with 12 children. The most important value they have is love. Fine dining and visiting other counties and dancing lessons were not a part of their needs or wants. Love for each other and God are of primary importance to them. Many of these children have gone on to make a good living and have learned the importance of sharing.
It is extremely sad how children are raised with the more basic and primitive rudiments of life and nothing beyond that. (Not mentioning God at all for He/She is the Ultimate). In order for children to be well-developed persons, they should be exposed to music, arts, culture, and the finer things of life. Nothing provides children with a more conclusive and well-rounded education than to experience different cultures, theatre, dancing/music lessons, and fine dining.
Children from large or in this case, EXTREMELY large families, lived at the most basic, even primitive rudimentary existence. This is par for the course for the average child in large/very large families. That is why people from large/very large families experience a culture shock when they encounter those of us from small families who experienced higher and finer cultural things. It is sad to never experience these finer aspects of civilization.
The large/very large family is inverse in its premise. Parents having children w/o being concerned with their welfare. They are unconcerned with providing children beyond the rudiments, if that. Parents of large/very large families have an immature and childish attitude. It is what THEY want even though they know that they cannot support a large/very large number of children. In large/very large families, it is THE CHILDREN who must be THE ADULTS as for sure, the parents AREN'T. Children in large/very large families are THE ADULTS, raising and fending for themselves from a very early age. Hey, the parents really don't give two figs about their children after physically giving birth to them. They just are in love with the idea of have a LARGE/VERY LARGE family regardless of the negative consequences to their children.
About two decades ago, I saw a program on Dateline in which a father of FOURTEEN children wondered how he was going to FEED his children. Well, the shortsighted man should have thought of this before he thoughtlessly reproduced. It was suggested that he food that was discarded by stores for his children to consume. Where is the LOGIC here? How can parents myopically have children that they KNOW that they cannot afford? There is a level of selfishness and immaturity of parents who have such large/very large families? Intelligent, loving, educated, and MATURE parents practice FAMILY PLANNING, not reproduce at will like lower lifeforms!
Here's a clip demonstrating the immaturity of parents who still want children although they have TEN already and can hardly take care of the TEN they already have:
I never knew a family bigger than my In laws, but do know of smaller ones, with maybe 4 or 5 children, where the parents really did have more than love to offer, they knew they wanted a large family, planned it, and had the means to buy them what they needed, as far as food, clothes, education, social lives, etc.
I'm not saying material things are all that matter. But when the family gets beyond a certain point, they get teased at school, because their clothes and what they have at home is too different from the other kids. They are excluded and considered weird. The parents don't have time to spend with them, to help with homework, or to take them anywhere beyond everyday errands.
This can be worked out in a family with a lot of help, if it's slightly smaller. When you get up to 8 and 10 kids, the oldest ones have to raise them, and resent that, and the jealousies never end. I've tried to continue onward with my husband's side of the family, but now they are still fighting about who came and didn't to his funeral, and seem jealous that I am not doing worse than I am. I'm not doing all that well, just because you shower, put on some makeup, and try to smile, doesn't mean you are fine. But in their world where they have so little, they are actually jealous of me, and that I can afford to go on a trip and buy a car. I worked full time many years to be able to afford to live the way I want as well. I didn't think your comments were directed to his family. They are mostly crazy and I doubt I will be in touch. His Aunt also was always jealous of my son because he was her parent's first grandchild. It never ends!
I know people with 4-5 children. Hell, many of those people were more well off than me. Their children had all the amenities that life had to offer. Good schools, attended plays, travelled, went to Ivy League schools, many went to earn Ph.Ds. I know a classmate who was one of 4 children, her oldest sister has a Ph.D. Four to five children are considered a medium-sized family. It is still manageable and the parent has time to spend individually with each child. However, I DO have a problem with a person who has 6 or more children, now THAT'S unmanageable for the parent, oftentimes finances are stretched to the limit, and its ensuing problems. I concur with your premise regarding the matter!
There are many people with 4 and 5 children and they are doing well to quite well. It is those who have the humongous families of 6 or more children who are problematic and where the detriments FAR outweigh the benefits. However, many women who have such a large number of children have some type of obsession. They have some void in their lives which they fulfill by endlessly having children instead of finding a more conducive and constructive pasttime. One can say that mothers who have large/very large families fall into the following categories: uneducated, uninformed, psychologically dysfunctional, traditionally/fundamentalistic/fanatically religious, and/or narcissistic. They have children for THEM, they could care two hoots about the welfare of their children. Their children are there to fulfill THEIR needs e.g. Michelle Duggar.
Here is what many people think of women with more than 8 children:
What happened to HER? She's NOT WELL.
She SNAPPED, from the pressure of having SO MANY children. She couldn't cope yet insisted on having...MORE...
MOOOORE, are you freaking kidding me? MOOORE? She's had MORE than ENOUGH! Is her body a turnstyle?!
Oh, Jeez, good night nurse! God said multiply, not have a NATION, Jeez! Some people!
Dear Lord, we are thinking, intelligent human beings, NOT mice!
This is the HEIGHT of insanity. Let me go, I have THINGS to do. That woman is OUT of her "MIND"!
CRAP! NEUTER her!
Jean, of course children from large/very large families are considered DIFFERENT. You are so correct. There was a girl in my elementary school. She was one of TWENTY. The other children made fun of her and held their noses as she walked. She was raggedy and unkempt so were her siblings. She lived at a level slight above that of an animal.
Children from large/very large families are outcasts among other children. I noticed that in my elementary school, the children from large/very large families were at the bottom of the pecking order. My father stated that people look down on children from large/very large families and that parents who have large/very large families are considered to be stupid. Let me not digress.
Children from large/very large families have the worst clothes, they stand out but in a negative way. They are also socially retarded and backward because they have not been expressed to much. Not only other children deride them but so do teachers. Teachers also see such children as problematic and tend to have negative associations regarding them. Children from large/very large families are considered the LOWEST of the low.
Yes, they are abnormal. They are not like normal children. They are damaged in many ways. They have NONE of the things that other children normally have. Jean, I wrote a fiction hub regading a girl from a very large family and what she endured at school based upon the abovementioned classmate.
I observed how children from large/very large families were made fun of by other children. They also were not popular in school. The other children did not want to associate with them. Of course, they are excluded by other children. That is why children from large/very large famlies, if they have outside associations, associate with others from large/very large families. I was one of those from a small, affluent family who befriended such children. Boy, what an abysmal environment they lived in. Sad really.
That explains why children from large/very large families become bullies and are generally misbehaved. They also become sociopaths and psychopaths, often gravitating into more dangerous delinquent activities to earn the respect that they did not receive at home.
Mentioning family,two of my maternal aunts( the poor, unsuccessful ones) hated me because I was an only child who lived a life that they wish they could have lived. My maternal cousins, who are from a large family, are the poorest and least educated.
Hell is paradise compared to life in a large family. Parents of large/very large families are selfish, callous, and thoughtless. If they weren't they would not subject their children to a childhood of castoffs, poor nutrition, and poor living conditions because of their incessant breeding.
P.S. Parents who have large/very large families are abusive. They must be to subject their children to the most abominable socioeconomic and socioenvironmental conditions possible. There are homeless people who live better than many children in large/very large families, believe me.
My classmates from large/very large families would visit me frequently to get away from their home environment, don't blame them at all. As I got older, I disassociated myself from them as they had a different mindset from mines, electing to associate only with like-minded individuals from small, affluent families such as mine.
I believe that there should be a penalty imposed on parents who produce large/very large families as they know that this is detrimental to their children emotionally, mentally, and psychologically. The large/very large family in this postmodern times is absolutely barbaric and neolithic in its premise. It is totally unnecessary! Good conversation, Jean, and have a lovely evening. Off to a fine restaurant!
Jean, you indicated that your mother-in-law came from a family of nine children. Did your late husband come from a large family also?
I wish I would have found this forum sooner. I have to laugh at some of the things I read. My husband and I have been blessed with 7 beautiful children. We hug our children and tell them we love them daily, sometimes several times in one day. We do a lot of things as a family but we also make time to give each child their own time and attention. WE raise our children. We do not burden our older children with doing our job. We don't live in poverty or make our children wear hand me downs. You cannot speak for every large family. Not all large families are poor, broke and miserable. Some of us are very happy and we take pride in parenting. Our oldest is 17 and just graduated from high school. He will be attending a 4 year University in the fall. We are a happy and healthy large family. We laugh, we joke, we educate, we teach, we talk and we LOVE! Occasionally our older children will babysit for us. However, we pay them for their services. I do not believe in "built-in babysitting ". So please do not group all large families into one category. I love my children with everything in me. We can afford them we can provide for them and we have been told we are doing an excellent job. Our children are a blessing and they are very much loved and wanted and they know it.
I am happy to hear that you have the love, patience and resources to be good parents to the children you have. If my comments came across as narrow minded, I apologize. The experiences I had with my husband's large, crazy, neglectful family are the only ones I've had with a family who had more than 4 children. A family with that many kids was about the norm when I was growing up, though I only had one brother. I have scoliosis, which is hereditary, and believe my parents were afraid to have more kids.
Sadly, many of my late husband's cousins raised their own families in much the same neglectful way, although they had less than 9 children, and better financial situations. Some families just can't break out of cycles of bad behavior. I didn't mean to say every large family is that way.
No but MOST large families are that way. Large families have a culture and psychology that isn't present in small families. Jean, you are correct in stating that what you have stated. Large families have a different modus operandi from small families. People from small families make more involved and hands on parents because that was the way they were raised. Even though some may have larger families, they are still involved and caring in the lives of their children. For example, a famous celebrity from a small family had a larger family. This celebrity wanted to give her children a great life and worked tirelessly to provide her children with this. This celebrity is known to be an excellent and loving mother.
Parents from small families believe in teaching their children. They are highly involved in their children's lives. They want for their children what they have received in their childhood. In contrast, parents from large families are less involved in their children's lives. They believe that children should teach themselves. They also believe that children should raise each other. Even though they have smaller families, they raise their children in the way that they were raised. They believe, even in better financial circumstances, that their children should be tough. They are also harsher in the way they raise their children. A celebrity from a very large family sold his mansion and settled for a small house because he believed that his children did not need the big mansion. People from large families believe in doing without and inculcate their children the same way. Jean, you are spot on in your analysis. People from large families tend to be more neglectful and less involved parents than people from small families, that is pure logic.
Your large family is an extreme rarity. The average large family(6 or more children per family) is poor to impoverished socioeconomically. Children in the typical large family environment have to do without, even the necessities. They often go without nutritious food, depending upon inferior quality foods as more nutritious foods are costly to the average large family.
Children from large families DO without medical, health, and dental care for the same reason I have outlined above. Children from large families lead a very hardscrabble life of want. They do not have the things and advantages that normal children have. They have wear castoffs. They also have to depend upon donations in order to stay socioeconomically afloat.
It is quite normal for children from large families to work during childhood to get the things that normal children have such as spending money and other things. They also have to work to supplement family income. Secondary education is a rarity for children from large families, many children from large families(the older children) have to discontinue their education to work to help support their families. Tertiary education is only a dream for average children from large families. Thus they continue the poverty cycle of their families to a next generation.....and the next.
In the typical large family, oldest children are the parents of their siblings. Since their parents have more children than they have effectively raise, the former compel the oldest/older children to raise their younger siblings. Oldest/older children in large families are akin to enslaved laborers; they have to be ON for their parents and siblings 24/7/365. Many oldest/older children do not have a normative childhood and adolescence as a result of raising younger siblings. Also children in large families tend to be neglected as parents discard the oldest/older children in favor of the youngest/younger children in the family.
That is your opinion, I do not agree but I will respect it. Our children have always had medical, dental, vision and life insurance. We've never depended on the government for any type of assistance. We travel, we go camping we go to amusement parks we do everything "small families " do. I believe that children are a blessing, and we have been blessed abundantly. I'm on the pto, my husband and I both volunteer on school trips and classroom activities. We have tons of books at home and a designated homework and reading area. There are a few families larger than ours in our community and those parents are awesome as well. I have not seen the poor and struggling families and children that many of you speak of. The children and parents are always very clean and well kept. My maternal grandparents had 9 children, my paternal grandparents had 7 children. My mother only had 2. I'm not guessing , assuming or quoting statistics I am speaking from experience. Coming from a large family does not mean one is doomed. It depends on the parenting. I cannot speak for all large families and neither can any of you. I understand the importance of being an involved hands on parent. I understand that each child needs time, love, attention, and praise. I understand it is my responsibility to raise my children. Being a mother is a role that I take pride in, I do not take the title lightly . We are responsible for these little people. I don't believe my family is rare. My mother and father were both raised in large loving families . We have neighbor's and friends that come from large loving families. We are not Octomoms, or the Duggar mom. We are loving, hardworking, dedicated and very involved parents. I asked my mother to have more children, but for health reasons she did not. I didn't like our small family. I loved the large family gatherings especially the holidays. I was spoiled by both my parents and grandparents . My father and grandfather have both passed away, but my mother and grandmother are both supportive and involved. My kids are also spoiled and want for nothing, they have the latest everything. Although I believe love and time are more important than material things, our kids want for nothing. I listen to the things my children say. I listen when they are excited to tell others how big their family is. I listen when they talk about how they check on each other at school or when they want to sleep in each other's rooms. We went to a back to school block party and one of my sons teachers approached me and my husband. She said "I was so excited when I saw your sons name on my roster. Your children are so smart, humble, respectful, and well behaved. All of their previous teachers speak very highly of them. I was hoping to have one your kids in my class". Our children see their large family as a blessing not a curse. Of course they argue but they love harder than they fight. In my community and small town most large families are happy and healthy. Both parents are involved and are doing a great job! If a parent or parents are capable of loving and supporting 8 or more children then more power to them! I applaud them, I support and encourage them!
I DON'T and WON'T, 1-2, maybe 3 or 4 children are ENOUGH for any family. Parents cannot effectively raise more than that number of children without enlisting or forcing the oldest/older children to raise the younger siblings. All large families of 6 or more children have the oldest/older children raise the younger siblings. That is a FACT.
I have 4. I guess I am going to have to get rid of the bottom two. That's what they get for being born last.
YOU ARE A DAM LIE.... AND THAT'S A FACT!!
The little one literally just broke a candle. I cannot believe how much money we spent adopting her. If only I'd have spoken to you first my family would have been one child away from perfection instead of two.
I have only one sibling. However, my mother was one of seven children, and my father was the youngest of nine. Though actually, my father did have one younger sister, but she did not live past infancy. Both parents came from Catholic families, and that was just the done thing, especially in those days. My father's mother stated on more than one occasion that she would do it all again. My mother's mother never spoke on the subject, but I suspect she would not have said the same if she were honest. It really depends on the family, I think.
Funny story with regards to my dad's parents. Sometime after her last pregnancy, my grandmother told my grandfather that she did not agree with theChurch's ban on birth control. While she would do it all again, she realized that not all couples could handle nine children, and that she thought they should be allowed to use contraception.
Grandfather looked up at her and said, "Marie, this is a hell of a time to tell me this."
Good one! Thanks for sharing. You brought up good points though. There weren't many methods of birth control way back when, and Church didn't encourage small families anyway. Plus the US was an agrarian society, and families needed lots of sets of hands to work the farms. In the Midwest, kids still get out of school in May and go back in August, times more suited to planting times. I live in the East, so it doesn't matter.
Jean, large families were more suited to agrarian, pre urban societies where more children were necessary to help cultivate the land. Large families were more suited in times where were few social networks and agencies to care for people. Of course, birth control wasn't as sophiscated and advanced so large families were quite common. However, in modern and in postmodern times, large families are unnecessary as societies have become more globalized. In our postmodern society, large families are, in fact, a detriment to the family unit, especially to women and children. Repeated childbirths harm the body and children in large families have little to no parental attention. Fathers, who are sole socioeconomic providers, have the onus of such support placed upon them. It isn't pretty at all. It is totally fallacious that large families can socioeconomically support their families when the average large family can be aptly classified from being poor to being abjectly impoverished. The average large large family is dependent upon outside donations to keep them in socioeconomic stead. In our postmodern culture, 1-2 children are all that is necessary for couples to have, maybe 3 or 4 children if they want a large family but nothing beyond that. Why have a large family, knowing that your children will be impoverished socioeconomically, bereft of parental care, and having the oldest child being the parent? This is the height of illogical and unintelligent "thinking", only uneducated people in this day and age would "think" of having a large family, Jean. Educated, intelligent, and aware people have small families because such is beneficial to the family unit socioeconomically, emotionally, psychologically, and mentally to all involved.
Considering other interesting thread titles...
"Women with more than 8 cats?"
"Women with more than 8 brushes?"
"Women with more than 8 dollars?"
"Woman with more than 8 pairs of shoes?"
"Women with more than 8 cavities (tooth-wise.)?"
"Women with more than 8 books?"
"Women who start more than 8 threads?"
"Women with more than 8 fingers?"
There are so many options.
When I first moved here, I'm a California city gal, I worked with a person who had 13 siblings. She was from a farming family and apparently large families are the norm for the circles her family socialized in. However, if someone with little means and difficulty putting bread on the table deliberately entertains a procedure by which she'd most likely have multiple births, yes, I'd wonder where her mind is.
@Arachnea, +1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000-it is the height of psychosis to have a large family(6 or more children per household) if one cannot afford it mentally, emotionally, psychologically, and socioeconomically. The average parents are usually overwhelmed by a large number of children. This results in high stress levels as more children create more stress. Because of this stress, there is higher incidence of child abuse. Corporal and other harsh forms of punishments are rife in large families. Parents simply don't have the time to talk to their children, so they resort to harsher methods of correction.
Parents cannot effectively raise such a large number of children by themselves. Guess what? The oldest child is consigned to parent younger siblings, oftentimes forfeiting their own childhoods and adolescence. Older children in large families are often cast aside in favor of the younger children. I have seen oldest/older children from large families HATE their younger siblings because the latter received more attention and had more freedom than they did. Children have to raise and fend for themselves as their parents are unable to do for them. In essence, in large families, children either raise themselves or each other. There is NO such thing as a close parent/child relationship in large families.
Children in large families oftentimes have to work from childhood albeit part-time and weekend jobs to get the things that normal children have. They have poor to no health, medical, and dental care in addition to consuming inferior quality food. Meat and fish are rarities in large family households and so is other nutritious, high quality foods. They do not have the amenities that other children have. They have to wear cast offf clothing because better quality of clothing is beyond the budget of large families. Many large families have to depend upon outside donations and charities to stay afloat. I also want to add that if it were not for school breakfasts and lunches, the average child in large families would not get decent meals. If it weren't for school nurses and other medical staff, the average child in large families would not receive any type of health, medical, or dental care.
Children in large families also do not have educational and other intellectual paraphernalia in their homes. Books are rarities in large family households as opposed to small family households. That is why so many children from large families are academically behind when they begin school. The large family environment stresses the rudiments and survival over any type of cultural, academic, and intellectual achievement. It is rarity that children in large families complete secondary education and continue to college and graduate school. They are lucky if they do complete secondary education as many times they are forced to drop out of school in order to work to help supplement family income thus continuing their family legacy of poverty.
The average parents of large families really do not care about their children's welfare. All they are concerrned about THEIR wants without considering the ramifications of their incessant reproduction on the family dynamic. If their children are impoverished and wanting, their attitude is often nonchalant. So what if their children are impoverished and do not have the things that other children have. All they CARE about is aimless and mindless reproduction of children even they cannot afford it.
Besides studying the large family extensively in college and reading many books on the subject, I have parents, relatives, ex-childhood friends, and associates who came from large, even gargantuan sized families.
by Grace Marguerite Williams 5 years ago
(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...
by Cindy Lawson 6 years ago
How many children do you think is too many to have?There is a woman on the island where I live who survives only on benefits and now has 14 children. She openly admitted she got jealous when her 16 year old daughter got pregnant last year. The Husband left her a couple of years back, and most of...
by Danielle Lopez 5 years ago
Is it responsible to have a large number of children?I've been watching TLC's "19 Kids and Counting" and have been debating on whether or not it's responsible to have so many children. What are some of your views on the subject?
by Grace Marguerite Williams 17 months ago
Why do parents of large to very large families tend to delegate the raising of the youngerchildren to the oldest sibling? Many parents from large to very large families (6 or more children) state that they have little or no part in raising their children, they purport that they...
by Nichol marie 17 months ago
What is your Sterotype when you see a large family of 4 children or a small family of just 1 childDo u judge I dont judge on family size at all or those without children at all but I guesse this is a thing now
by Stacie L 5 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 be "blessed" with another...
Copyright © 2019 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.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|