<p>Allmusic, it is my great pleasure to make your acquaintance! Thanks, DukeEgr93! 
~b.</p>
<p>
How about conservative, Irish Catholic families with two children?</p>
<p>Our family lives in a small town in Kansas, where we are basically the only Jews (although we are close to a larger city which does, actually, have two synagogues! <em>lol</em>). We are VERY accustomed to having people make broad assumptions about us…at least until they see the bumper stickers <em>ack</em>! :eek: Actually, the bumper stickers are a relatively recent addition as I have lived in fear of vandalism for most of the time we’ve been here… <em>lol</em> ;)</p>
<p>I have been falsely credited MANY times over with such “conservative” behaviors as homeschooling (it is almost EXCLUSIVELY a conservative activity here, though not everywhere I realize), being an advocate of “no sex until marriage,” and being pro-life. It has given me tremendous insight about stereotyping and the factors that are elements of it. And it has given me more awareness of people as unique beings and more determination to look at them as INDIVIDUALS rather than as part of a group (which, in all actuality, they may or may NOT be a part of).</p>
<p>I cringe when I see stereotypes being thrown around…I realize that some of them have their basis in factual data, but when I see people nonchalantly throw out “Liberals this…” or “Conservatives that…,” I just find myself basically disregarding that person. There are simply too many shades of gray.</p>
<p>~berurah</p>
<p>Edited to add: Forgot to mention one of the MOST amusing things about all of this…I have met MANY people here for whom we are the ONLY Jews they have ever met. NOW, they’re gonna think ALL Jews have SIX kids!!! <em>ROFLMAO</em> :D</p>
<p>
There ya go!!! :)</p>
<p>berurah: “I cringe when I see stereotypes being thrown around…”</p>
<p>Then you must have been cringing throughout most of this entire thread, including after reading the original post! 
I sure was.</p>
<p>Here is my take on the op and subsequent posts:</p>
<p>That people who choose to have small families raise brats, do not have enough love to share with more people, so consuquently buy kids things, that kids from small families have the gimmees, that parents who only have a couple or just one kid some how do a bad job raising those kids</p>
<p>THIS was the sterotype I picked up on in many many posts</p>
<p>As well as: large families are more loving, people with large families raise better kids, parents of large families are better parents</p>
<p>THIS was the other stereotype I picked up on</p>
<p>So, do not call me a kettle, unless you accept being a pot</p>
<p>I saw very little shades of gray in the supporters of large families, but I didn’t disregard them</p>
<p>If you need to bond by bashing me, go right ahead, I stand by my OPINIONS and you can stand by yours</p>
<p>if you look to the statsitics, you will find that atomom is correct, it was something which I was already aware, and simply pointed out a syndrome I have noticed</p>
<p>Gee whiz, some people are protective of breeding a lot</p>
<p>If you have so much love to share, adopt or foster, why does all that love have to be to your blood, why not someone else into your family</p>
<p>go ahead, slam away, i could care less</p>
<p>Heya, Berurah! Nice to make your acquaintance as well!</p>
<p>I’m newish here, so hopefully everyone will give me a little latitude as I find my way and figure out who everyone is!</p>
<p>Now, I also agree with CGM, about the stereotypes on this thread. I could go through and find a boatload of posts that basically sing the praises of the large family, and diss the small. In fact, the original question was raised as such, no matter how many kids OP has.</p>
<p>I said it before, and I will say it again. There can be selfless onlies, and bratty, entitled multiples. It isn’t that children of large families have the market on either good behavior, etiquette, lack of gimmes, or whatever. That is what I have opposed in this thread all along.</p>
<p>citygirlsmom~</p>
<p>Feel free to keep ranting…it’s a free country after all, but frankly, you’ve missed the point of nearly every post made. Try a little objectivity…it works wonders! ~berurah</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>jack~
As a matter of fact, I do think I addressed that on page one in THIS post…
</p>
<p>That said, I would be WAAAAAAAAY overly sensitive if I cringed at every post on this thread. I’m simply not that defensive! ;)</p>
<p>
I’ve also seen negative stereotyping regarding large families – some posts have had a pretty nasty tone. But I’ve seen several, just on the first few pages, taking a more balance view. See posts #8, 14 and 20 – that’s where I stopped tracking.</p>
<p>From my earlier post:
These discussions would be more productive if there was less criticism of people’s political philosophy. Not everything in the world is polarized along the liberal/conservative axis.</p>
<p>Oh, and jack~</p>
<p>I did not find the original post offensive at all. I took it as a musing sort of thing. After all, the OP said herself that she has only two children.</p>
<p>I mean, you don’t have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that MOST large families cannot afford what MOST small families can (disclaimer, disclaimer…I did not say ALL, I said MOST). I mean, we do not travel as many families do. We cannot afford to. Pointing that stuff out is not, in and of itself, a sin. ~berurah</p>
<p>Fair enough sjmom. For the record though, I don’t think, on this thread, I ever came down on large families. I said again and again basically “to each his own”.</p>
<p>I just don’t like the stereotyping that large families create better, more well adjusted, less selfish kids. It irks me deep down. The whole country is consumer oriented, not just small families!</p>
<p>
I agree. My kids have just about as much “stuff” as kids in their friends’ small families. ~b.</p>
<p>berurah: I’m not surprised you didn’t find the original post “offensive at all.” I can understand how one might phrase the original question without offending anyone; however, I daresay if the post had read like this (see below where I substitute “large” instead of the OP’s “small”), you might have found it somewhat offensive:</p>
<p>There are trends that I don’t think would have “caught on” if so many families weren’t so [large].</p>
<p>Some examples: </p>
<p>Lavish birthday parties</p>
<p>Pricey proms</p>
<p>Kids with the “gimme’s”</p>
<p>overscheduled kids</p>
<p>“Overscheduled kids” can be attributed to large families as well as small. (Not to mention that “overscheduled” is very subjective.) And “kids with the gimme’s?” I’ve seen that in large families and small. Same thing with “pricey proms” and “lavish birthday parties.” Not one is specific to the size of the family. Not one. The last “lavish birthday party” my kid attended was in a family of 5 children; and I don’t think she ever attended a “pricey prom,” though I know they do exist. That usually has more to do with the type of school one is attending, the general make-up of the student population, and what the administrationa and faculty are willing to tolerate/allow–not the size of the families.</p>
<p>Perhaps it has been said, but…though there may have been many parents who chose to have a small family because they could not afford to have a larger family, it is probably a pretty safe bet that many preferred greater wealth and liberty to a larger more cumbersome familyeven if, as they suppose, for the sake of the 1 to 2 kids. </p>
<p>There is of course nothing wrong with the choice…but it may be telling–that is, it may be reflected in family decision making in general: wealth and comfort over and above financial and personal sacrifice.</p>
<p>As to for the earth oy vey: Sounds like dogma and ideology, not heart and mind.</p>
<p>Interesting theory, Fountainsiren. Again, it seems a stereotypical view. “Wealth and comfort” and “liberty” just sound selfish, while “financial and personal sacrifice” sounds all hairshirt and good and selfless. Ugh. Gag me. Some of the reasons people generally don’t have large families anymore–like they used to–is because of (1) birth control; (2) large families aren’t needed anymore to work the land, which was one of the main reasons in the past that people had large families; (3) more educational and career opportunities for women, so they choose to marry later (if they marry at all). And if you’re gonna have 5+ children, you better start at a young age; (4) people get divorced more, and that limits the number of children in a first marriage; the second marriage (if there is one) often occurs when both people are older, and–again–starting a family at an older age often limits the number of children a woman can have–and that’s even true for adoption. Many adoption agencies in this country do not favor older couples who might want children.</p>
<p>Personally, I think it is wise that people have no more children than they can afford; it isn’t for most people about “wealth and comfort”, but about responsible family planning. Why have five children if one can only afford to clothe and educate and provide for two or three? Or one? Is it some sort of noble sacrifice, some selflessness, to have more children?</p>
<p>See, maybe I am misunderstanding that post, but that’s what I am reading.</p>
<p>In fact, all parents sacrifice for their children. That’s what parenting is all about.</p>
<p>Weath and comfort above personal sacrifice? </p>
<p>are you saying that if a couple has 6 kids, they do it so they can sacrifice? Huh? That having a large family PROVES that the parents are more giving than a family who has only 2 children? And to have a big family is to prove one can sacrifice seems kind of selfish to me</p>
<p>One poster said, and I will paraphrase, I am glad I have a large family so when my parents are old, I won’t have to take of them by myself</p>
<p>Another pointed out it that they have more people to love them and be around with a large family, is that a sacrifice</p>
<p>your points seems odd to me, and to say that I care about the world so I chose to have a small family, sounds like DOGMA…please, FS, DOGMA and what in the world is wrong with IDEOLOGY…</p>
<p>Just wanting to disagree with a liberal I see, how suprising</p>
<p>Ohhh, Ideology caring about the earth is a bad thing, got it</p>