<p>
It is ALSO “noble” to show respect for others…even those who make choices different from yours. And true, from-the-heart “other-serving” people are NOT doing what they do for the sake of “nobility.” ~berurah</p>
<p>Why assume that 2 children is an acceptable number for every family and more than that is selfish and bad for the planet? If we think that it’s our business to make such judgments, why not decide that those who truly love and nurture their children should have the job of replenishing the planet, and those who would neglect their children or treat them as props or accessories should not have any? Perhaps there would be the same number of children born, but they would be distributed differently.</p>
<p>Very true, logosprincipal. Might be better for all if Berurah-types all had six or eight or ten kids, and people who would be bad parents didn’t have any.</p>
<p>Berurah: Hugs. Wow. Your mother knew how to push buttons - and I hope you can see that’s what she was doing. There are some people who come from that and repeat the behaviour (cannot tell you how much dysfunction I see in my family that is passed down through the generations), and some vow to never be like that with their kids. </p>
<p>I wasn’t nurtured very much (at all!) growing up - so I know what you mean about that. In some ways, that’s probably how/why I tend to be very nurturing (although not of small children - I was never really much of a child - always too serious). Wouldn’t be surprised if you are the same way. </p>
<p>Hugs. My unwavering admiration to you for being able to make such a lovely legacy from so little. There will be generations of functional kids because you taught your kids how to be good, generous, loving people.</p>
<hr>
<p>Back to the OP’s original, original question. Simple math: if a family can spend $1000 on prom, they’ll spend it differently if they have two kids ($500 each - limos, nice dresses) or if they have eight kids ($125 each, which means dresses on sale and kids cook dinner beforehand). In order to properly analyze this situation, you absolutely MUST use “controls” as much as possible - analyze the same parents, income, etc with two kids and with eight kids. </p>
<p>As for weddings - sure, if you have only one daughter, you can afford to give her a really splashy wedding. You might not want to, but you can afford it. If you have six daughters, regardless of whether or not you want to give them all splashy weddings, you can’t.</p>
<p>Since this is College Confidential, let’s analogize to college. Parents of only children can make very different decisions than parents who have a lot of kids. While some parents might send their kids to the State U regardless of whether they have one kid or ten, there are parents who will try to give their kids the best and send them elsewhere. The best example for this thread is the mom who is trying to decide whether or not to let her D transfer to NYU Tisch for music. Some of her problem is that she has four kids - would love for her D to go to NYU, but there are three other kids, and is it fair to them? Parents of only children don’t have that issue. (Some families could send all four kids to private. Some wouldn’t allow it anyway. But for many families, the number of kids does play into how money is spent.)</p>
<p>Analogize that to weddings. Proms. Summer camp. Moving back in with Mom and Dad after college graduation. Cars. Sharing bedrooms in the house. </p>
<p>I never thought that the OP was being critical or judging individual families. Rather, she was hoping to spark conversation about a trend. Trends, for those of you who missed it, do not encompass everyone; there are exceptions, outliers, and the like, but they indicate how the majority has shifted.</p>
<p>I do find Greybeard’s comment interesting about middle children. When I read psychoanalysis of birth order, I do see that there are not nearly enough controls in place. I’m #2, but my older sis is thoroughly irresponsible. They never mention how having a sibling who doesn’t play along with the birth order paradigm changes the way that other siblings act.</p>
<p>Not that it affects the intent of your example, aries, but Tisch does not offer music. NYU’s music school is housed in Steinhardt. :)</p>
<p>I just read this opinion piece and thought it offered an interesting perspective on the family size issue for anyone who might like to read it:</p>
<p><a href=“TCS Daily : Technology - Commerce - Society”>TCS Daily : Technology - Commerce - Society;
<p>Sorry! I thought that the woman’s D got into Tisch. </p>
<p>Today’s Boston Globe had an interesting article that is relevant to JLauer’s original question:
<a href=“http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2006/05/17/girl_geared_spas_enjoy_boom/[/url]”>http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2006/05/17/girl_geared_spas_enjoy_boom/</a></p>
<p>Also should provide some food for thought. (I personally don’t agree with the people who equate all of this with making girls into objects - so long as they aren’t replacing sports with pedicures. Otherwise, very interesting.)</p>
<p>I thought the OP was being very critical…so there you go</p>
<p>CGM: I have to agree with your assessment that the “OP was being very critical.” The original post mentions “recent trends” that she and many others might find offensive (or not), and then attributes them to small families. I don’t think any of those “trends” have anything to do with the size of one’s family. Other outrageous generalizations made here as well. A weird thread for sure. Makes me think the OP had another agenda altogether??</p>
<p>jack: what agenda would that be, since she has herself one of the now-much-maligned small families? Definitely a strange thread - methinks the word “cafe” should be replaced with “Ventatorium” sometimes :)</p>
<p>The agenda of liberal vs conservative, as that was what the OP has stated she is a couple of times</p>
<p>that liberals have small families and spoil their children, while conservatives have large families and don’t </p>
<p>I may be wrong, but that is my take from what i have seen on this thread</p>
<p>If I am wrong, well, i am wrong, but from my perspective, this is what I see</p>
<p>Funny, I smell the same rat.</p>
<p>CGM: Oh… I’ll just throw out that I personally haven’t seen that in this thread, epecially, as mentioned, since OP has a small family.</p>
<p>
<em>lol</em> DukeEgr93, you beat me to this one! ;)</p>
<p>I think it is a subtle underpinning; not necessarily from the OP, or from the posters with large families who have posted on the thread.</p>
<p>But, there is definitely a message in the posts that leads me to the very same conclusion.</p>
<p>DukeEgr: I have no idea what the OP’s original intent, or agenda, was. Don’t have a clue. I just think there’s more to the OP’s original stereotyping/generalization than what appears. Why make a nasty comment like that about small families, make a list of all the bad “trends” we can attribute to small families, and then ask others to add to it? Again, weird.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That you somehow cannot seem to get away from the “liberal-conservative” division doesn’t mean that none of the rest of us can. In fact, I know quite a few “conservative” families with one or two children. By the same token, how many liberal-ish (or at least moderate) JEWISH families do YOU know that have six kids and are running around in a Suburban with bumper stickers on the back that say, “Our Parents are Pro-Choice” and “A World of Wanted Children Would Make a World of Difference”??? ;)</p>
<p>Stereotypes BUSTED. :)</p>
<p>For the record, my children consider themselves VERY spoiled…with <em>LOVE</em>!! <3 <3 <3 <3 <3</p>
<p>~berurah</p>
<p>I saw some interesting stats [in Foreign Policy] about family size among boomer women. 39% had zero or one child–which made up only 7% of the next generation. That group tended to be more “liberal” (more likely to be Democrats, favor abortion rights, more educated, less religious, have careers, etc. The 11% of boomers who gave birth to four or more children produced 25% of the next generation. This group was more “conservative” (more likely to be Republican, pro-life, less educated, more religious, more stay at home moms, etc.) So it is true that, in general, big/small families do tend to lean in one direction or another. (Not saying all or good/bad, just stats quoted from memory). Btw, before people see that “11% had 4 or more” figure and wonder where all those big families are, the majority of those 11% have exactly 4 children a few have 5 or 6, but those extra large families are very rare–I remember seeing other census stats that only 3/1000 families have 7 or more kids. Regarding the original topic, I see in my own extended family some of this ‘syndrome’ --some small family kids lavished with so much stuff and too much attention, every minor event is videotaped, and every perceived slight is nursed and analyzed. Even the dog has a birthday party. Yet those kids are impatient with younger cousins and don’t seem to understand that the world can’t always revolve around them --sometimes it has to stop for diaper changes and naps…On the other hand, there is a big family that no one wants to be around due to the kids’ unruliness/bad manners–caused by a lack of attention/disciline from the parents</p>
<p>I don’t know <em>any</em> “liberalish” Jewish families with six kids and a Suburban (I’m a Jew myself, living in amongst lots of Jews) The large Jewish families tend to be Orthodox, and more conservative, both socially and politically.</p>
<p>Oops…those stereotypes!</p>
<p>
Allmusic - may I introduce you to Berurah. Berurah - Allmusic.</p>
<p>ROTFL!</p>
<p>Egg on face???</p>