U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Parenting
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-03-2016, 08:56 AM
 
2,813 posts, read 1,443,767 times
Reputation: 6116

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by PoppySead View Post
These studies are ridiculous in my opinion. One week having only one child means you smother them, and expect too much. Only children get stressed and depressed. The next week having several kids is wrong, bad, makes them losers. One, two, three or more? Which will turn out the better child? Are we really going there?

Just enjoy the kids you have, do your best and ignore articles like these. There's enough to worry about.
Agreed!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-03-2016, 08:57 AM
Status: "Welcome Governor Polis!" (set 4 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
85,700 posts, read 100,146,163 times
Reputation: 32152
Quote:
Originally Posted by sheena12 View Post
In the US, for many reasons, higher birthrates, which for the purpose of this post I will round up to more than born on one marriage (an intact family), are generally, today, products of families from lower socioeconomic groups. And I am not blaming them.

It's also long been known that children who are the eldest, receive the most education. But, also the most discipline. Middle children often suffer identity crises, and feel rather lost. The youngest seems to get the most attention, and affection, and the least discipline. Sometimes that's not a good combination.

As for myself, I have two great kids but I always wanted four. I grew up as the oldest in a family of four. I am also glad I was the eldest.
I have to disagree with you on this, my friend. The US' birthrate wouldn't be higher than most other "developed" countries if it were just people in poverty having larger families. Some countries in Europe, and the country of Japan, have the lowest birth rates in the world. Most European countries have very generous maternity leave and child support programs for parents of young children. See this article: Germany's Paradox: Family-Friendly Benefits, But Few Kids : NPR

I've seen many families where the oldest gets the education the parents think the student should get, not what the kid really wants. I don't want to get too personal with examples, but lots of older kids go to a parent's alma mater for college/major in something "practical" e.g. engineering, rather than pursue what they'd really like to person, e.g. physics, etc. Then the younger one comes along and goes to a more prestigious college and majors in physics. And so on. That happened to an extent in my own family. I as the oldest was "encouraged" to know what I was going to major in from the get-go, major in something practical, e.g. teaching or nursing which were about the only fields open to women at the time, etc. My brother came along and majored in history, and had a career in HR.

OTOH, sometimes families run out of money for college by the time the last kid comes along.

Last edited by Katarina Witt; 01-03-2016 at 09:12 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-03-2016, 10:21 AM
gg
 
Location: Pittsburgh
17,237 posts, read 17,510,768 times
Reputation: 10990
For the most part poor uneducated people have more kids, especially minorities. Therefore, they score lower on tests. The test in China was similar because the rural people that are farming would score lower. Meaningless really. A great parent and some money can make all the difference. Mostly the great parent.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-03-2016, 11:27 AM
 
Location: Texas
604 posts, read 490,386 times
Reputation: 1825
The article should be renamed, "small families that do not have enough financial resources...." Like everything else, socioeconomic status is the key.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-03-2016, 11:49 AM
 
Location: The point of no return, er, NorCal
7,055 posts, read 4,376,445 times
Reputation: 9049
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayerdu View Post
The article should be renamed, "small families that do not have enough financial resources...." Like everything else, socioeconomic status is the key.
Yes indeed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-03-2016, 01:39 PM
 
5,128 posts, read 2,682,363 times
Reputation: 22839
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoppySead View Post
Children Without Siblings are 62% More Likely to be Unhappy, Sad, or Depressed
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...ard-themselves
I could list countless studies showing it's better to have less or more children.

These studies are ridiculous in my opinion. One week having only one child means you smother them, and expect too much. Only children get stressed and depressed. The next week having several kids is wrong, bad, makes them losers. One, two, three or more? Which will turn out the better child? Are we really going there?

Just enjoy the kids you have, do your best and ignore articles like these. There's enough to worry about.
Excellent response.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-03-2016, 02:06 PM
 
Location: North America
14,211 posts, read 9,796,495 times
Reputation: 5537
The Duggars will not be amused.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-09-2019, 05:07 PM
 
Location: Southern California
20,592 posts, read 6,851,323 times
Reputation: 13856
The Duggars carry on the tradition as Josh and Anna are on their 6th already.

And making $$$$ off it all. I'm glad my parents had us 3 and that was it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-09-2019, 08:30 PM
 
Location: The point of no return, er, NorCal
7,055 posts, read 4,376,445 times
Reputation: 9049
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pennies4Penny View Post
As I was reading this I thought this had to be a US thing and that it had to be different in other countries, so I'm glad that was addressed.

The problem isn't so plain as more kids equals more problems, it is very complex. The two biggest factors (aside from number of siblings) were the mother's education/abilities and the amount of time parents spend with their kids. Americans are overworked, especially low income Americans. If they have to work two jobs just to get by, of course they won't have as much time to spend with their kids and to help them with their schoolwork. While Americans are working more and more hours, some European countries are going to 6 hour work days (Norway) or offering base salaries (Finland) so they will have more time to spend with and develop their children as well as secure finances.

Maternity leave here is also appalling!! Mothers don't have the proper time to spend with their babies. The US is part of a tiny group of countries that doesn't have mandated maternity leave. Most other countries offer around a year WITH pay.

So we can look at the title of this article and assume that more kids/large families are detrimental to a child's development or we can look at all the factors and compare them to other countries where it's not a problem and see what they are doing differently and learn from them.
Nicely stated.

It's an interesting study. I think other factors like SES contribute to the complexity of large family dynamics and how parental relationships function with each child and their stage of development. When both parties work and you have a large family, you're bound to face challenges when it comes to tending to everyone's needs, along with household duties. The vast majority of families I know with 4+ kids have a SAHP. That includes us. We're fortunate that my husband has a flexible schedule that allows him to be home and available during the morning and afternoon. We're both very involved in our school-aged kids' education and we're always striving to provide a stimulating and well-rounded learning environment for our kids. Our older two kids have always excelled in school. That hasn't changed with new siblings.

The younger kids are obviously not independent and self-sufficient, so they require more hands-on involvement in every respect. Our dynamic with our older kids is unique to their needs and stage of development. My teenager and I are still pretty close and we spend a lot of time together talking about deep stuff, silly stuff, and nerding/geeking out. She still likes cuddles. <3 It was actually important to me and my husband that one or both of us work part-time hours so that we can be available to the kids. We think this is especially true during the middle/high school years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-09-2019, 08:35 PM
 
Location: Southern California
20,592 posts, read 6,851,323 times
Reputation: 13856
I don't know about the study but what came to mind is that with the large families, more children to take "care" of parents in their unable to take care of themselves years. I had one child and no regrets, it's how things worked out in my life.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Parenting
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top